2008 January 27

THE BBC last night faced accusations of pro-Brussels bias as it was revealed that the corporation had taken out £141m in “soft” loans from the European Union.

The broadcaster has taken out three separate low interest loans from the EU-backed European Investment Bank (EIB) to fund the expansion of its growing commercial empire.

It also emerged that the BBC has received grants from the EU worth £1.4m over the past five years.

The Brussels deals raise awkward questions for the corporation about its coverage of European affairs and its burgeoning profit-making arm whose interests extend to property, publishing and the internet.

The details of the loans and grants stretching back six years emerged in a letter written by Zarin Patel, the BBC’s finance director, to Bob Spink, a Conservative MP.

The first £66m loan in 2003 was used to fund “the fit-out” of a new building in the BBC’s Media Village development in west London, which was later sold for a profit. The second loan for £25m and the third for £50m were made to BBC Worldwide, the corporation’s profit-making arm, to pay for the acquisition of overseas rights to programmes made by the BBC in the UK.

The EIB has described itself as “an autonomous body set up to finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies”.

It specialises in providing low interest loans below the normal commercial rates. However, the BBC refused to disclose exactly what rates the EIB was charging.

The BBC letter, written in response to a parliamentary question, also discloses a series of grants to help to fund online educational programmes and preserve the BBC archive.

Spink said yesterday that he would be putting down a Commons motion condemning the BBC for accepting the cash: “I am concerned that the independence and objectivity of the BBC may have been improperly influenced by funding from the EU.”

A BBC spokesman denied any pro-Brussels bias: “There were no editorial obligations whatsoever attached to the three EIB loans. The BBC’s commercial businesses go to the European Investment Bank as opposed to any other commercial bank for purely commercial reasons.”

He added: “The BBC occasionally receives some EU funding in relation to specific educational or research and development projects.”

However, the size of the EU loans highlights the rapid growth in the BBC’s commercial activities, which are kept separate from the core programme-making funded by the £3.5 billion a year licence fee.

Critics question how commercial contracts fit into the BBC’s “public services” remit.

Insights of a Lawyer: Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

by Hal. C. Sisson, QC

In mid January 2008 united 9/11 Truth Movements across Canada, spearheaded by Victoria and Vancouver branches, sent a petition letter to the heads of all Canadian political parties and to every Member of Parliament. The letter requested two things:

The first request (a) follows in the wake of questioning in the Japanese Parliament (Diet) by Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic Party, as to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 presented by the U.S. Bush Administration. He asked just how terrorists could possibly have attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

Six years ago the U.S. Administration and their intelligence agencies stated they would present convincing evidence that foreigners of a Muslim Arab persuasion were the perpetrators of the tragic crime of 9/11. This evidence has never yet been forthcoming. People ask why? Can’t the United States prove their allegations in court? And why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden?

On the other hand, millions of people around the world have amassed a great deal of solid evidence of incomplete investigation, missing evidence, unsubstantiated conclusions and outright lies as to the facts and the full story of 9/11. So much so that it is impossible not to conclude that at the very least the events were in some measure allowed to happen - the motive being the persuasion of the American public to condone the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq — and is Iran next?

The Japanese queries were presented at about the same time as former Italian President Francesco Cossiga told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that all the intelligence services in America and Europe know it was an inside job of a false flag nature.

Who else is of the same opinion? Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, lawyers, university professors, engineers and architects challenging the Bush government’s story. Former German Secretary of Defence Andreas von Bulow said, “The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one.”

Every action the U.S. government or its intelligence services take, good, bad or indifferent, is now prefaced by the words “since 9/11 we have to do this, we have to do that, we have to do the other” — every atrocity anywhere in the middle east or in the world is immediately attributed to a vague group called al Qaeda and the concept of a perpetual but profitable to some ‘War on Terror’.

The Canadian Government can no longer deny that the official story told by the Bush Administration is complete nonsense. This discredited version of 9/11 events as promulgated by the Bush Administration is the justification for Canada’s bloody involvement. If Bush’s version of 9/11 is a lie, like his story on “weapons of mass destruction”, then Canada must ask why it should continue to sacrifice its sons and daughters and spend its resources in a distant country that never attacked or threatened Canada’s security.

Truthers think that the Canadian Parliament should seriously and openly discuss and investigate these matters before they continue their present course of action or run the risk of being drawn into wider conflicts in Iran and Pakistan That is why they are calling on the Canadian Government to launch its own independent investigation and Official Enquiry into 9/11

Addressing point (b) - the request that there be an open parliamentary discussion of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement (a grandiose extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)). The most recent meeting was August 20, 2007 when Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon went to Montebello, Quebec for a secret meeting of the SPP, more transparently described as the North American Union, part of the larger Globalization agenda called the New World Order. Many organizations including 9/11 Truth tried and are trying to inform Canadians what was and is being discussed in a veil of secrecy and a deafening wave of silence from the Canadian and American media. Big decisions at committee level are being made behind closed doors while publicly masking the true intention.

This writer proposes to use a cautionary tale to illustrate the approach that should be taken before entering any Agreement whose implementation involves the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty, and which seeks, in the words of MP Denise Savoie, ‘to merge our security policies and practices with those of the United States, leaving Canada with a government with less authority, less control over our natural resources and less autonomous and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies’.

Warning – the anecdote I am about to relate contains a scene involving sex and therefore may not be acceptable to the sensibilities of those who wish to remain unaware that such an activity may be rampant in our society. Reader discretion is therefor strongly advised:

“Fast Eddy wanted desperately to have sex with this really cute, really hot girl in his office… but she was dating someone else. One day Eddie was so frustrated that he went to her and said, “I’ll give you $100 if you let me have sex with you…“

Eddie said, “I’ll be real fast. I’ll throw the money on the floor, you bend down and I’ll finish by the time you’ve picked it up.”

She thought for a moment and said that she would consult with her boyfriend… so she called him and explained the situation. Her boyfriend says, “Ask him for $200, and pick it up the money real fast. He won’t even be able to get his pants down.”

She agreed and accepts Fast Eddy’s proposal. Over half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is still waiting for his girlfriend’s call. Finally, after 45 minutes the boyfriend calls and asks, “What happened…?”

Still breathing hard, she managed to reply, “The bastard had all quarters!” …

The lesson to be learned here is one of business management, and certainly is one that should be adopted by the Canadian Parliament in relation to the SPP — “Always consider a business proposition in its entirety before agreeing to it. Otherwise you are likely to get screwed!”

And if the Canadian public doesn’t want to be forever picking up Fast Eddy’s American quarters they had better figure out how to stop the SPP, now, before it is too late.

Hal Sisson, Q.C., R.C.A.F. armourer in World War II, is a reformed lawyer who practiced law in Peace River, Alberta for thirty-five years and has been resident in Victoria, B.C. since 1985. Author of ten published books including the best selling Coots, Codgers and Curmudgeons (with his partner Justice Dwayne Rowe); and his latest Modus Operandi 9/11 that exposes the White House lies about 9/11, the machinations of the New World Order and the “War on Terror”, and does so featuring salty humour in the form of a novel. International croquet and marble player and collector, his major hobby was stand-up comedy and writing and performing in Western Canada’s longest running (25 years) burlesque revue, Sorry ‘Bout That. LINK.

Diana’s bodyguard had help pleas ignored

Bodyguards for Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed had calls for extra security rejected during their fateful trip to Paris, the inquest into their deaths has heard.

Trevor Rees, who was one of two bodyguards assigned to the couple, said he believed Dodi and Diana should have had four security guards protecting them from hordes of photographers and onlookers in the days before their fatal car crash in the French capital.

Photographs of the couple had been splashed across newspapers around the globe as they holidayed aboard Dodi’s yacht in late August 1997.

By the time they arrived for a one-night stopover in Paris on August 30, dozens of photographers were waiting to track their every move.

In the early hours of the next day, Diana, Dodi and their driver Henri Paul were killed after their Mercedes crashed in an underground tunnel after apparently being pursued by photographers. Mr Rees was the only survivor.

Making his second appearance at the inquest, Mr Rees told how he and his fellow bodyguard Kes Wingfield repeatedly contacted top security chiefs for Dodi’s father, Harrods billionaire Mohamed Al Fayed, in London pleading for extra help during the couple’s holiday but none ever showed up.

“At that stage, it (the relationship between Diana and Dodi) was in the open, in the media, and the attention both from the paparazzi and general public would have been a lot higher,” he said.

“I would have expected, or I would have thought, it would have been good to have a four-man team, the same as would have been with Mr (Al) Fayed.

“We didn’t get any extra security. I believe at one stage we got an extra crew member to help the crew on the yacht, but we didn’t get any extra security.”

Mr Rees suffered extensive injuries in the crash which claimed the lives of the princess, Dodi and their driver.

He has rejected recent media reports suggesting his memories about the crash were gradually returning.

9/11 Truth: How I Came To Distrust the Official Version

From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn’t think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts.

I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three.

In September of last year I read an article on “conspiracy theories” about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events.

Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.

Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.

Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.

Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”

The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.

The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.

I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.

ID CARDS.. BY FORCE

Young drivers are to be FORCED to get ID cards when they apply for their first licences.

The People has seen sensational leaked Home Office documents revealing the secret plan.

It says newdrivers and those applying for fresh passports will be “coerced” into getting the controversial identity cards.

PM Gordon Brown has always said the scheme will be voluntary unless Parliament decides otherwise.

But last night shadow Home Secretary David Davis stormed: “This is an outrageous plan.

The Government has seen their ID card proposals stagger from shambles to shambles.

“Now they plan to use coercion in a desperate attempt to bolster a failed policy.”

Civil rights group Liberty said: “This memo confirms that compulsion is the ultimate ambition of this scheme.And it can be achieved by stealth even without the need for further parliamentary debate.”

The secret document from the Identity and Passport Service is headed: “Options analysis - outcome.”

It says: “Various forms of coercion, such as designation of the application process for identity documents issued by UK ministers (eg passports) are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way.

“There are advantages to designation of documents associated with particular target groups, eg young people who may be applying for their first driving licence.” The report says “universal compulsion should not be used unless absolutely necessary” because of the ID controversy.

Phil Booth of pressure group No2ID said: “This makes ID cards even more devastating and scary than we thought.

“But it’s right our first priority is to consider where ID cards can be of the greatest benefit.” Compulsory cards for foreigners living here begins this year. They will be available to Brits who want one from 2009.

Last week it was revealed students will be targeted in 2010 in a plan linked to new bank accounts and student loans.

But a compulsory scheme is unlikely until 2012 after the next election because Mr Brown knows he would never get it past MPs. Many want the scheme dumped after the scandal of personal data losses, including the details of 25 million child benefit claimants.

Pakistan rejects CIA border operation

President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly rejected a US proposal to allow CIA-run combat operations in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.

The New York Times reported that CIA director, Michael Hayden, and the director of US national intelligence, Mike McConnell, made a secret trip to Pakistan early January.

The officials sought to convince Musharraf that greater involvement of US forces would help root out al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghan border, the report quoted a senior US official as saying.

The report claimed both sides are now discussing other joint efforts, such as enhancing US intelligence and use of armed Predator surveillance aircraft over the tribal areas.

Sunday’s report went on to add that Washington believes Pakistan is not taking the al-Qaeda threat seriously, although intelligence reports suggest militant groups are trying to destabilize the Pakistani government.

Out of the ashes: A New World Order

Global elite signal declining superpower status of the United States, rise of new order

Comment: French TV was kind enough to inform us about the true decision makers behind Davos - the Bilderberg group. A video clip of this report and an English translation can be found here. The discussion which took place in Davos, Switzerland among several individuals who were themselves members of Bilderberg (such as Henry Kissinger and Gordon Brown) gives a window into the inner workings of the elite game plan.

As the United States faces an economic crisis that is being compared by experts to the 1929 Great Depression, the global elite are proclaiming the fall of the U.S and the rise of a new global order.

The IOL reports that the recent meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which focused in part on the global economic meltdown, pointed to “global” solutions and the need for a strengthened United Nations in the face of world crises.

A strengthened United Nations, also discussed at Davos, was promoted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this week after secret talks with world leaders. Brown called for a “new world order” and a “global society”. As the New Zealand Hearld reported,

The economic crises that the world is plunging into is being and will be used as the pretext to forge the new global order long sought after by the global elite. More centralized control will emerge. “New” solutions will be presented in slick packages to a despairing population begging for order.

US Senate to grant immunity in illegal wiretapping

The Democratic-controlled Senate moved Thursday to shield telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s illegal domestic spying program from lawsuits. By a vote 60 to 36, the Senate rejected any provision in its upcoming amendment to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would open the companies to prosecution in civil courts.

Congress passed a temporary amendment to the FISA Act before its Labor Day break in August, which included retroactive protection for the telecom companies complicit in the administration’s illegal wiretapping. That amendment is set to expire on Friday, and Congress is seeking to work out a replacement before then.

While debate over the Senate bill will continue into next week, the House has already passed a draft of the bill that did not include immunity. If the Senate finalizes its version next week, it will move on to be reconciled with the House version, where it can be expected that an immunity clause will be inserted into the final document.

For its part, the White House said it would veto any bill that did not include complete immunity for companies that aided its illegal program. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans are also strongly pressing for an expansion of the bill’s provisions, and not simply a renewal of the temporary law passed six months ago.

The Senate picked up the bill this week after laying it aside in mid-November. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apparently moved to postpone the debate when it became apparent that the bill could not be completed before Congress took its holiday break.

In view of differences that have arisen over a replacement bill, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (Dem.-Texas) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (Dem.-Mich.) proposed extending the current law—which is set to expire February 1—for another 30 days.

However, Senate republicans blocked such an effort Tuesday, in line with views expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who commented Wednesday, “There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it.”

The day before the vote, Cheney gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, in which he demanded immunity for telecommunications companies that had participated in the program and said the FISA expansion bill should be passed as quickly as possible.

A number of Senate Democrats agreed to vote for the preservation of the immunity clause following the Bush administration’s agreement on Thursday to Democrats’ demands that it show them classified documents relating to the warrantless domestic spying program.

Senate Republicans supporting the inclusion of an immunity clause were supported by a number of Democrats, most notably Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were absent during Thursday’s vote and it is unclear whether they will participate on Monday, when the debate is set to continue.

Sometime around September 2001, the Bush administration illegally authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept data from people within the US without first obtaining warrants. This was in violation of the 1978 FISA act, which set up a secret court to authorize surveillance within the US. Congress retroactively legalized the Bush administration’s program by passing last August 5 the Protect America Act of 2007, which is set to expire February 1.

If the bill is not renewed, government agencies complain that they will have to resort to getting individual court orders in order to spy on communications that pass through the US telecom infrastructure. The Democrats—even those calling for a rejection of the immunity clause—do not want to leave the intelligence agencies out in the cold, fearful of being seen as “soft on terrorism.”

House Majority Leader Harry Reid, in bemoaning the Republicans’ demands, said, “It appears that the Republicans want failure. They don’t want a bill.” The debate—even to the limited extent that the Democrats are willing to draw it out—revolves around the best way to manage the massive domestic spying program implemented illegally by the Bush administration.

Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, is currently working on a bill that would simply do away with the FISA court and create conditions under which intelligence agencies could spy without the added burden of obtaining warrants. Such a bill could then by applied retroactively to shield the telecommunications companies from prosecution. In promoting the bill, McConnell raised the specter of an imminent terrorist attack, stating recently, “My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

Democrats and Republicans alike have announced their support for immunity on the grounds that they do not want to hurt the balance sheets of telecommunications companies. There are currently some 40 lawsuits filed against the telecoms by individuals and groups in relation to the wiretapping. These cases have already unearthed a number of details the Bush administration would prefer to leave hidden, including testimony by a former AT&T employee that the company let out space within one of its main routing facility, which was used to direct traffic directly to the NSA.

VIDEO: Anthrax Attacks an Inside Job

From the History Channel’s show Conspiracies: Anthrax Attacks explaining how the weaponized strain could only come from the United States BioDefense Program.