antiaristo mini-interview

by **antiaristo** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:52 pm

There was a SECOND inquiry. The question is WHY? WHY did the Department of Trade and Industry open the SECOND investigation on May 4 1995? This is the crucial question, and this is reflected by the questions put to the Minister. So I’ve reproduced those questions at the end of this post. Ms Beckett is very slippery and vague in reply. She gives no answer. So let me tell you what happened. As I told the Inspectors on August 24 1995, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As you know, between 31 March and 4 July this year I have levied on the Prime Minister and his allies the strongest moral and intellectual attack I could muster. I have no doubt whatsoever that my agitation had been instrumental in prompting the re-opening of your own inquiry on 4 May.<hr></blockquote> I wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (The Nolan Committee) on 13 and 25 April 1995. Using Who’s Who I obtained a private address for every member of the Committee, and sent each Member a copy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>13 April 1995 Dear Lord Nolan, I write with not tittle-tattle, but a question. When did you first read my original submission to the Committee? This is very important. I have recently learned that an attempt was indeed made against me sometime between 10th and 20th January this year. Those making the attempt were heavy-minded of my submission to the Committee – to the extent of checking the public hearings to see if I was there. That submission was dated and delivered to the Cabinet Office in duplicate on 16th December 1994 (I have the receipt to prove it). Had I disappeared, it could have been an embarrassment to have my submission in the hands of independently-minded Committee Members. When did you first read my submission? Yours sincerely John Cleary<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>25 April 1995 Dear Lord Nolan, I’m a great believer in pragmatic Bayesian experimentation. I invite you to observe that species on which you are to pronounce. The ubiquitous quango. All Members of the ITC know both Russell and Stevens are crooked, and that Dalkieth is a secret supporter. I myself have served notice of intent to take action on each Member, and defective (that is, all) decisions will be subject to judicial review and are probably reversible. The ITC intends to award the last terrestial broadcasting opportunity, and several consortia are thought to be interested, so it is a competitive situation. One consortium incorporates MAI plc, which led the attempt on my life in January, in part to cover up for ITC criminals. Last time round, when Channel 3 licenses were auctioned by the ITC, three men opened every bid on receipt. They were Sir George Russell, Jocelyn Stevens and David Glencross. I invite you to observe that species on which you are to pronounce during the coming weeks. Yours sincerely John Cleary PS I believe you owe me a reply to my enquiry of 13th April<hr></blockquote> A crazy man will be ignored. But because I sent copies to their private addresses, the Members were aware of my claims. They were clearly disturbed, and the bureaucracy was forced to send a reply. Back it came. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>1 May 1995 Dear Mr Cleary, In response to your letters of 12 and 25 April. The Committee are unable to enter into protracted correspondence with members of the public. There is, therefore, nothing I can usefully add to our previous correspondence. Yours sincerely Andrew Brewster Committee Secretariat<hr></blockquote> Pretty terse and pissed-off, I thought. That was the last I heard until the Inspectors wrote to me on 10 August 1995. It turned out the inquiry had been re-opened on 4 May. The Nolan Committee Members had indeed been disturbed by my letters. The Committee Membership was as follows Lord Nolan Sir Clifford Boulton Sir Martin Jacomb Professor Anthony King Tom King MP Peter Shore MP Lord Thomson of Monifieth Sir William Utting Dame Anne Warburton Diane Warwick ================0 The questioning that led to Beckett’s reply was this <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Insider Dealing Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions Mr. Roger Kaye QC and Mr. Hugh Aldous FCA have been contracted to act as inspectors investigating alleged insider dealing. [49432] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: They have only been appointed insider dealing inspectors into the two investigations into the alleged insider dealing in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many reports of investigations into insider dealing carried out under the Financial Services Act 1986 have been published. [48603] Mrs. Beckett: None. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons have been the subject of more than (a) one and (b) two investigations by her Department into alleged insider dealing. [49568] Mrs. Beckett: Inspectors are appointed under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate dealings in the shares of a particular company not the dealings of specific persons. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to publish her Department's inspectors' reports; and if she will make a statement. [48252] Mrs. Beckett: In relation to public companies it is already the Department's policy to publish reports prepared by Companies Act inspectors if it is in the public interest to do so. However, the reports of insider dealing inspectors are not published. There are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such inspections. Lord Archer Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will seek the agreement of Lady Archer and Broosk Saib to make public details of the evidence they gave to her Department's inspectors investigating the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [4892<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> Mrs. Beckett: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will seek the agreement of Ms Morgan Thomas to make public details of the evidence she gave to the Department's inspectors investigating the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [49433] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: No. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department's inspector's report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing carried a recommendation. [49431] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: The report of the inspectors is confidential. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many investigations were conducted into alleged insider dealing in Anglia TV shares; when each investigation started and finished; and how many persons were interviewed in each case; [49362] (2) if the report by her Department's inspectors on the investigations into share dealing in Anglia TV by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare has been made available to Ministers; [49202] (3) if she will request Mr. Edmund Lawson QC to review the information now in the public domain concerning the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing with a view to ascertaining whether there are grounds for a fresh investigation; [48605] (4) if she will seek the consent of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare to publish the report of the investigation into his conduct in respect of share dealing; [48606] (5) if she will seek the permission of the former President of the Board of Trade, the Right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to consult the inspector's report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing; [49547] (6) if she will pass the report of her Department's 1994 investigation into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealings on to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a request for an opinion whether (a) the report and (b) facts disclosed subsequently constitute sufficient reason for the inquiry to be re-opened; [48249] (7) pursuant to her answer of 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 242, if she will assess (a) the statement by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in the Evening Standard of 9 June concerning Sir Nicholas Lloyd and (b) subsequent statements by Sir Nicholas Lloyd as possible new evidence which could justify the appointment of inspectors to investigate the alleged insider dealing in Anglia shares in 1994. [48253]<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980715/text/80715w09.htm">www.parliament.the-statio...715w09.htm</a> That's a lot of material to absorb. Can I have some considered feedback, please?

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:01 pm

What was the underlying crime? Not getting the paperwork straight on the managing director who announced layoffs? What about this story is different from standard corporate bullshit? They laid off a bunch of people, some jackass got busted for blatant insider trading, a lot of bigwigs lied to cover their own asses, and your letters were blown off. What's unusual about that? What does this have to do with you, other than being the unfortunate victim of a layoff and blown off letter writer? You mention an attempt on your life....what's that all about? What does any of this have to do with covert trans-Atlantic power structures guiding world affairs?

by **dugoboy** » Tue May 23, 2006 11:18 pm

i am a bit confused myself. did'nt you say they stole your daughter away from you over this? ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:54 am

Is that the consensus? Is there nobody that can see the underlying crime? Unless the reader can see the underlying crime none of the rest will make any sense. Unless you can see the underlying crime it will be impossible to make the connection with Yugoslavia, then Iraq (and doubtless Iran). Can anybody see the crime?

by **dugoboy** » Wed May 24, 2006 10:30 am

anti i guess you'll have to explain. i dont see how this incident with anglia connects to blair. i dont see how this goes to the international scene. i do understand the fraudulant acts of the board at the TV station. it might do good to explain what Hollick does for a living. ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:20 pm

dugoboy, The fraudulent acts are the model for much larger crimes. It's the principle that I want people to grasp. If you can induce the outside world to believe that an individual fills a position, when he has not been formally appointed, he can do anything. He will have no consideration for the rules. The principles of law break down. That's why the Romans had an expression - ultra vires - it's that old. There is a very long thread on Hollick here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2221.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2221.topic</a> I'll lift a post from that thread and put it here. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I’ve done some more digging in public sources for information on the Vampire. Beyond his position as Managing Director of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts he’s a director of Diageo (1) and TRW (2). He’s also Chairman of London’s South Bank (3). He used to be REALLY powerful, with direct control over government policy on business and industry. This Independent piece relates how he would become Mr Blair’s “Special Advisor” at the Department of Trade and Industry in 1997 (4). What this means is that Hollick was breathing down the neck of Margaret Beckett when she gave all those evasive and misleading replies to Gordon Prentice MP. When Hollick himself was the subject of the second inquiry by Kaye and Aldous, no wonder it was all so secret. He was a director of Anglia Television when the crimes were committed by Malcolm Wall. That report shows Hollick as a simple thief and would be murderer (just like Archer). When Beckett had served her purpose and was replaced as Secretary of State at the DTI Hollick stayed on with her replacement (the Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson). When Mandelson was moved to the Northen Ireland Office Hollick stayed on yet again with Stephen Byers. He was not shy about paying himself huge amounts from his corporate thievery (5), raking in over $8 million in 1997. By 1999 he was in line to take the dominant share of ITV and so convert himself into Britain’s own Berlusconi (6). But I kept on fighting after bringing down Lord Archer. In June of the following year Blair got nailed at the EU Council and Hollick got blackballed (7). Yes, I take credit for that. There’s no ambiguity about any of this, and they all know Hollick is a sack of shit, as the New Statesman makes clear (<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . References 1 <a href="http://www.diageo.com/en-row/NewsAndMedia/PressReleases/2001/19+Dec+2001+Lord+Hollick.htm">www.diageo.com/en-row/New...ollick.htm</a> 2 <a href="http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/20000216/press008115.html">www.theautochannel.com/ne...08115.html</a> 3 <a href="http://www.mysouthbank.co.uk/southwark/celebs&gossip-lord_hollick.htm">www.mysouthbank.co.uk/sou...ollick.htm</a> 4 <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970507/ai_n14109196">www.findarticles.com/p/ar..._n14109196</a> 5 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/04/23/chol23.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlC...hol23.html</a> 6 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/537996.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/537996.stm</a> 7 See Please do not Post in Data Dump 8 <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/200012040013">www.newstatesman.com/200012040013</a><hr></blockquote> Can anobody else see the underlying crime?

by **blanc** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:30 pm

you mention 3 police forces looking for you, having given your wife the excuse that you were mentally ill. to what purpose were they looking for you? in UK police will look for a person (adult) who has absconded from a section, but do not get involved in, for example, missing person investigations. (it is generally very hard to get them to look for anyone) if I get this correctly, during the period in which the acting MD had sacked everyone, but was not in fact in a position to do so - because his appt wasn't approved by the board, those sackings were invalid, and would still be invalid unless it could be shown that the board somehow didn't know that he was acting as MD before he was appointed. and your intervention, I believe you say, stuck a spanner in the working of that scam, by bringing the illegality of the action to the notice of the board. How on earth could a board claim not to know that the MD who made such public moves as mass sackings was not appointed if they subsequently appointed him, irrespective of whether or not anyone helpfully told them about it? wouldn't a halfway competent lawyer acting for the illegally sacked employees drive coach and horses through that? I must have missed something.

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:02 pm

blanc, No, you've missed nothing. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>you mention 3 police forces looking for you, having given your wife the excuse that you were mentally ill. to what purpose were they looking for you? in UK police will look for a person (adult) who has absconded from a section, but do not get involved in, for example, missing person investigations. (it is generally very hard to get them to look for anyone)<hr></blockquote> I'd been a naughty boy. Following a hearing in the High Court on 20 December 1994 a`partner in Ashurst Morris Crisp threatened the my life and that of my children. He told me "You don't know what you are up against". That's when I decided to run. My family were away in a safe place, in Staffordshire. I decided to run to Ireland. But before I left I addressed a batch of letters. I decided to write to the wives of these directors, and told them what their husbands had done. The fallout was pretty spectacular. Mary Archer resigned her seat on the board. It was the front page story on every British newspaper. (blanc knows this, but lurkers may not. Lord and Lady Archer were THE power couple of British politics in the 80s and 90s, never out of the news). That's why the police were looking for me. They didn't know I was in Ireland. (Do you know about "Operation Mason" in the Thames Valley Police logbook, vis a vis David Kelly?) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>wouldn't a halfway competent lawyer acting for the illegally sacked employees drive coach and horses through that?<hr></blockquote> Yes. That's why I was litigant in person at the High Court hearing mentioned above. My solicitors saw what you are saying...and ran a mile. My barrister said to me "I accept you have a prima facie case for fraudulent misrepresentation"...and withdrew. It's not only us on this board who know about the cabal. Plenty of insiders know as well. They choose to accomodate. Make as much money as possible before the roof caves in. Let me just add this. This is where all the evidence is hidden. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A quick peer at Archer? No chance The freedom of Information Act has been hailed as a new charter for British investigative journalism, but so far seems to have yielded little of real substance. Some interesting little snippets on how much interior decorating cost at 10 Downing Street, a piece here or there on the cost of speed cameras and security cops for islamic preachers, but the letter of the new act has been observed far more than the spirit. So no glasnost on the legal advice prior to the war in Iraq, no information on how much we wasted on Black Wednesday - as yet. To this frustrating list must be added the story of Lord Archer and the mysterious case of Anglia TV shares. New readers start here: in 1995, the novelist-peer had a little dabble in shares in the Anglia TV company, and made a nice profit. But then, he had the advantage that his wife was a non-executive on the board, and a takeover bid materialised for the company just days after he bought his shares. Coincidence? The Department of Trade and Industry thought there might be more to it than that, and asked inspectors to investigate. Roger Kaye and Hugh Aldous plodded assiduously through the byzantine complexity of the case and completed their report, which was then left to gather dust on the DTI's shelves. Could The Observer possibly see a copy, we asked? In the new spirit of freedom of information, of course. We sat patiently waiting for the report to arrive, eager for all those grubby little details Lord Archer effortlessly generates, only to be told: 'Information is exempt information if its disclosure by the public authority holding it is prohibited by or under any enactment.' So back to square one then. Now where was that phone number for Hugh Aldous?<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1406804,00.html">media.guardian.co.uk/site...04,00.html</a>

by **rothbardian** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:50 pm

anti-- You stated: "..before I left I addressed a batch of letters. I decided to write to the wives of these directors, and told them what their husbands had done. The fallout was pretty spectacular. Mary Archer resigned her seat on the board. It was the front page story on every British newspaper." Wow, now that's the kind of corroborative 'smoking gun' tidbit that I've been interested in hearing. That's pretty wild stuff. Thanks, anti. I'm getting a better picture here.

by **dugoboy** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:00 pm

yes, i see now. what they did was a very naked act of aggression, they just didn't think they'd get caught. ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:42 pm

roth, Now I know what you are looking for. I started my fightback in 1999. Jeffrey Archer was standing as the Conservative candidate to be Mayor of London. His most dangerous opponent was Ken Livingstone, Labour MP for Brent East. Livingstone was a shoe-in. So Tony Blair blocked him from standing. He rigged the process. Instead the Labour candidate was Frank Dobson. A fine man but, visually, well, the closest I can think is of a survivalist, living in the woods (sorry Frank). It’s as though Archer was allowed to look through a gallery of all Labour MPs representing London constituencies, and choose his opponent. Which I’m sure is exactly what happened. Because Frank didn’t want to stand. Blair twisted his arm. Ken Livingstone left the Labour Party. He stood as an independent. As of 1 November 1999 the “Race for Mayor” was a three-cornered fight. Archer, Conservative; Dobson, Labour; and Livingstone, Independent. Archer would win, because he would get the Conservative vote, while the Labour vote would be split between Dobson and Livingstone. I offer no great insights here, everybody knew the score. But that was the situation into which I launched a counter-attack in November 1999. All this correspondence is in Data Dump, beginning here <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=7.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...ID=7.topic</a> This is the first. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>HRH The Prince of Wales 1.11.1999 Jeffrey Archer and Anglia Television Your Royal Highness, I write to make public important information pertaining to Jeffrey Archer, conservative candidate to become Mayor of London. For the prohibited trading in shares was the least of his sins at Anglia. What was devastating for the victims (the Archer cause hidden from public view) was the rank brutality visited upon the unfortunate employees at Anglia Television in the course of the cover up which followed. A brutality of itself worthy of national feature coverage (by Lisa Buckenham in The Guardian) before the inquiry became public. First of all came the prohibited trading by Lord Archer. Then came the mandatory enquiry into his "odd, if lucrative" activities. Then came the dead hand of State secrecy. Then came the Section 285 (Companies Act 1985) fraud against 200 naked and defenseless little people. Then came the forged Penal Notice and Court gagging order. Then came the second inquiry and yet more secrecy. Then "No Further Action", no publication and the absolute triumph of secrecy over democracy. But then Lord Archer said he had been "exonerated". And that is not true, for the efforts to conceal evidence of wrongdoing by Jeffrey Archer and the board of directors of Anglia Television have done immense damage to hundreds of ordinary decent people. I do not seek and will not accept money for all the pain and damage done to my family and me by agents of Mary and Jeffrey Archer. I have chosen to forgive. But this is about his fitness to become a Mayor with powers over police and judiciary. I cannot pretend these things did not take place. How do I forget those times he sent men from his gang to my front door late at night? I can forgive, but how do I forget having been on the run since 1994, my loving ties withered from these years of neglect? How can I forget when I have all this evidence which tells me the Archer connection is the reason for my utter ruin? Yet Lord Archer is by all accounts less than satisfied with his gilded perch above the law and claims moreover to have been "exonerated". And that is not true. Queens Bench 1994-c-2024, JP Cleary v Anglia Television. Case proven therefore cynically frozen and "sub judice" now for over five years, so that Jeffrey Archer can run for Mayor of Europe’s greatest city under false pretenses. Jeffrey Archer is now an official candidate of the Conservative Party to become the first Mayor of London elected by popular vote. He would exercise immense powers for good or ill. With this endorsement by one of the two parties of government he has been placed before the people of London as though exonerated, without blemish and worthy of our trust. And that is not true. The people of London are being deceived and defrauded by Jeffrey Archer and the Conservative Party. What I say is corroborated by documents attached from Anglia Television and the Chief Executive of the Court Service. It does not depend on the contents of the "unhappily never been published" inquiry report nor on any assumption that Archer broke the law. The damage came from triggering the inquiry and associated shroud of secrecy, which Lord Archer himself has confessed as a "grave error of judgment". These events took place during 1994 and 1995 but have been willfully covered up and buried. Just like the original decision by Lord Archer to break the rules, break his promise and trade in Anglia shares during a closed period. The decision which triggered the automatic inquiry leading to so much collateral damage to so many innocent bystanders. He cannot be exonerated, has in any event confessed and apologized to Mary, and is now cheating millions of Londoners. Should you wish to conduct due diligence I will gladly show you original signed documents, though you do of course have access to the inquiry report. Please do all that you can to let the mass of ordinary voters know about this material and so make less than likely another successful Archer con trick. For if London voters are deceived and tricked into electing this deeply flawed individual (and leaving aside the myriad judicial and political ramifications for our fast-dying democracy) please tell me what I should say to my two little girls when they are fully grown. How do I explain why Daddy was not there for them when they needed me the most? Why I failed them in every way as a father? How I never for a moment stopped loving them more than life itself? How Jeffrey Archer, freshly laundered statesman and pillar of democracy, could have been quite the dangerous, ruthless and amoral gang boss that my whole story would attest? Yours sincerely John P Cleary BSc MA MBA enc. separate list next page cc I have sent copies-hundreds of them-to others with the same interest in sparing London a gangster Chief Executive. Candidates, Parliamentarians, local government, Euro deputies, Party Leaders, significant foreign embassies, Law Lords, Cambridge University folk, Ministers of the Crown, Party Leaders, local union chiefs, local and national press, radio and television. Specifically including Sir Paul Condon, the SFO, the DPP, William Hague MP, Janet Reno, Lionel Jospin, Jack StrawMP, Gordon BrownMP, The Economist, The Guardian, The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard. Of all recipients I ask the same - do all that you canto let the mass of ordinary voters know the truth. Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That’s all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.<hr></blockquote> Archer had to stand down once this was in general circulation. A friend reported to me that there had been rumblings in the press. But if he did that he would be admitting what I'd written. So he got together with Rupert Murdoch and Max Clifford, and between them they devised a kind of reverse "sting" in which Archer would be recorded talking about a different crime he'd been involved with. They chose the "Star Libel" trial of 1987. Ted Francis had been a witness at the trial. He testified that he had been with Archer at a certain time, therefore Archer could not have been with Monica Coghlan (a prostitute) at that time. Archer had bribed him, suborned perjury. Max Clifford recorded their conversation. Rupert Murdoch fed it into the News of the World. I have before me a copy of the News of the World dated 21 November 1999, and printed in Spain. Seventy percent of the front page is covered with these words ARCHER QUITS AS NOW EXPOSES FALSE ALIBI You can imagine the size of the print. Do you get the picture? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>yes, i see now. what they did was a very naked act of aggression, they just didn't think they'd get caught.<hr></blockquote> dugo, It was an act of war. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/24/06 6:48 pm

by **dugoboy** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:49 pm

wow! please do explain how its an act of war? ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:48 pm

dugo, There was an employee share scheme, and employees held shares for their own account. In all employees controlled about fifteen percent of the equity. Hollick needed 90 percent to go unconditional and force out dissenting minorities. So Holloick and Anglia included this commitment as a condition of the deal, published in the offer documents. “The board of MAI has given assurances to the board of Anglia that the rights of the management and employees of Anglia, including pension rights, will be fully safeguarded” On that basis the employees voted in favour, and Hollick got his 90 percent acceptance. Then as soon as they take over they renege on the deal by putting in a fake director, who promptly sacks one third of the workforce, in breach of contract. You don't see that as an act of war? Let me cross-post the letter to Blair, and the reply. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Meimia Fakenham Road Right Hon. Tony Blair MP Great Ryburgh House of Commons Fakenham London SW1A 0AA Norfolk NR21 7AG 25 July 1994 Dear Sir, “The board of MAI has given assurances to the board of Anglia that the rights of the management and employees of Anglia, including pension rights, will be fully safeguarded” This quote comes from the Offer Document, Listing Particulars and Shareholders Circular issued by MAI PLC in support of its agreed bid for Anglia Television Group plc announced 18 January and completed 3 May 1994. On 6 June 1994 I was forcibly prevented from attending my place of work by agents under the direct control of the Anglia Board and under the indirect control of the MAI Board. As a result the lockout was enforced by the police. It would appear as though contractual rights of access, personal private property and my right to earn my living – my only living – on agreed terms count for naught in the computations of an inhumane calculator. This event was preceded by two distinct attempts, each founded on deceit, to force me out of office while insulating the Boards of both MAI and Anglia. You will note that these are the parties to the pledge above my own words. First, a redundancy note was issued to me by a man claiming the office of Managing Director, even though he was not, nor had he ever been, a Director of the company. I don’t know about you, but I find a deceit executed through an impostor to be an ethically repugnant practice. It was also against Article 79B of the Company’s Articles of Association. But who’s got the dosh to follow that up, with our legal system? Then the artillery rolled in. Ashurst Morris Crisp to lay down the law on behalf of a righteously outraged client. Listen, little man. We know our rights and you’d better watch your step. The sheer indignation of their client shone through (especially annoying was my letter to yourself of 27 May 1994). I never knew a legal fiction felt such emotions. The “client” of course is a limited liability company, not a citizen. Worse, it receives a tax subsidy in this matter, while I get nothing. And the client is certainly not a Director! How could any Director, a party to the pledge cited above, risk that in his own name? All very interesting, no doubt, but what has that got to do with yourself? There is, I think, a public interest in this affair. Lord Clive Hollick is Managing Director of MAI and a Director of Anglia Television Group plc since 14 April 1994. Lord Hollick takes the Labour whip in the Lords – indeed is that relative rarity in modern times, a Labour appointed peer. Lord Hollick is a Legislator for life at the age of 49, courtesy of the Labour Party. It is in the interests of good governance that you have the maximum insight into the character and judgement of potential Ministers of the Crown. Ashurst Morris Crisp’s client cannot see how this sort of thing must compromise both leader and the Movement as a whole. Yourself, a man of Christianity and the Law. The Party, the child born of ceaseless endeavours of those who labour for their keep. Neither can associate. All in the expectation of saving perhaps fifty thousand pounds. By breeding I’m Irish working class, by instinct liberal. I wish you well in your victory and like all thinking members of the electorate will follow developments with interest. I will not further trouble your office. This message is my final act prior to handing over to my litigator to get proceedings for breach underway. Yours sincerely, John Cleary<hr></blockquote> And in reply <blockquote>Quote:<hr><div style="text-align:center">HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SW1A 0AA</div> The Office of the Leader of The Opposition Mr J Cleary Meixia Fakenham Great Ryburgh Fakenham Norfolk NR21 7AG 30th July 1994 Dear Mr Cleary I am writing on behalf of the Right Hon Tony Blair MP to thank you for your recent letter. It is Parliamentary convention, however, that one Member of Parliament does not take up the case of another Member. I must therefore advise you to contact your own Member of Parliament in relation to this issue. <div style="text-align:center">Yours sincerely, Katherine McDonald Assistant to Mr Blair</div><hr></blockquote>

by **blanc** » Thu May 25, 2006 4:59 am

so, there was no case because the barrister was warned off? or there was a case and the judgement was suspended? got lost here again. can relate to the barrister warned off scenario, know an ra case (nowhere near as big time as this) where barrister was threatened on court steps and withdrew, have been warned by barrister that law is on side of criminal in another, know a third where lawyers twice double crossed - ie two sets of lawyers, law society found against one eventually but damage done. as you know I have hunch that the fragrant pair are playing footsie with more than insider trading, so that bit jells. still puzzled over police looking for you. for a police force to look for someone at the behest of another force, there would have to have been a crime - ie wanted for questioning in respect of "x" at least. what was criminal in writing letters to board members wives? crude overkill is par for the course - but how did the heavies identify themselves to you? Jeff and the Rochdale prostitute is all round useful, I understand that part.

by **Byrne** » Thu May 25, 2006 6:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So he got together with Rupert Murdoch and Max Clifford, and between them they devised a kind of reverse "sting" in which Archer would be recorded talking about a different crime he'd been involved with.<hr></blockquote> Anti, Are you suggesting that Archer arranged his own reverse "sting”, the one that earned him being found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice; & awarding him a 4 year jail sentence? Why would he go to such lengths when he his share dealings had already been investigated by then, (I believe)? I thought that Ted Francis wasn’t prepared to see the crook Archer as Mayor of London (as he knew what sort of scheming Archer would have got up to as Mayor), so he (Francis) spoke out. Archer was then subsequently found guilty in court in 2001. Also Archer’s personal secretary had apparently kept a secret diary of Archer's movements; & another strange fact was that the false alibi that Archer had arranged to be fabricated (to counter the prostitute allegation) had the wrong date. Some details are at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Howard_Archer" target="top">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Howard_Archer</a> Is there more light that you can shed here?

antiaristo mini-interview

Re: Margaret Beckett in the House of Commons

Synopsis please

Re: Synopsis please

Re: Synopsis please

Re: Synopsis please

Hollick

clarifications

Re: clarifications

Re: clarifications

Re: clarifications

Re: clarifications

Re: clarifications

Re: clarifications

up against it

Re: up against it

Who is online