This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.
On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.
Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.
The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..
This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.
Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.
Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.
I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.
I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.
But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.
This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.
Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?
The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was
“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”
O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that
“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”
All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.
For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.
O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:
“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”
So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?
The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.
Hague replied to Corbyn that:
“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”
Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.
This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.
That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.
My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.
O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:
“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”
There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.
I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.
Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.
Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.
I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.
I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.
This is the story I was given.
Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.
According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.
My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.
On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.
There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?
The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.
Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?
There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.
Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.
It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.
There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?
Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.
UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:
“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.
From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.
Komodo,
This is the one that is interesting and it should be copied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1w1jKDy6Q
I am not going to have to contribute for much of the day today but someone must track these links about Gould that are being pushed to google pages 10 to 16 and more with a simple search Matthew Gould.
Again, I think the fact that the link are being pushed to later pages on google suggests the intervention og It people because some links can never be erased totally from the web but they can be pushed back on google in order to discourage potential searches.
An interesting article on gould at rense.com:
http://www.rense.com/general88/friends.htm
Sorry, I said that I am not going to be able to contribute for much of the day, not ‘to have to contribute’
Isn’t Peterhouse, Cambridge, a well known spook recruiting ground, and can’t you tell by FCO career trajectory who’s a spooky wookie?
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/sep/06/guardianobituaries.obituaries
A facebook page for UK in Israel where Gould answers questions. Down the page there is a wonderful question by Greta Berlin:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=147023012001796
Again, it seems that most info on Gould can be found on google past page 10 of the search
Tinker
He’s not a spook.
Sophia,
Fish out the links and let us know, already on this page under the heading; “British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould”. There is a black portion on the screen displaying “no such photos found!”
,
,
Craig,
Proof of the article is in the panic setting in, and web pages getting scrubbed. That pesky chappie Orwell’s memory hole, is never far away, is it?
This is the best skeleton on which to build a wikipedia article I’ve come across.
.
Career history
HM Ambassador’s Biography
Full Name: Matthew Steven Gould
Date of Birth: 20 Aug 1971
Married to: Celia Jane Leaberry Gould
Children: Rachel Elizabeth, born April 2011.
• September 2010-Present: HM Ambassador, Tel Aviv
• July 2007-2010: FCO, Principal Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary
• April 2007-July 2007: Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister
• 2005-2007: Washington, Foreign and Security Policy Counsellor
• 2003-2005: Tehran, Deputy Head of Mission
• 2002-2003: Islamabad, Political Counsellor
• 1999-2001: FCO, Deputy Head of Consular Division
• 1997-1999: FCO, Speech Writer to the Foreign Secretary (Robin Cook)
• 1994-1997: Manila, Second Secretary
• 1993-1994: FCO, Assistant Desk Officer (NATO/Bosnia), Security Policy Department
• 1993: Joined FCO
2
See also
• Our Ambassador
Useful links
• HMA on Flickr
http://www.yasni.co.uk/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fukinisrael.fco.gov.uk%2Fen%2Fabout-us%2Four-embassy%2Four-ambassador%2Fcareer-history&name=Celia+Jane&cat=employee&showads=1
Lecture at ESRA in oct. 2011 titled “Travels and Travails of a Nice Jewish Boy in the British Foreign Service”
“The Ambassador kept the audience on the edge of our seats as he described his postings to the Philippines (30 Jewish families and 2 feuding synagogues), Pakistan (where hotels and restaurants used for meetings have since been bombed), and Iran from 2003 until 2005. Ambassador Gould’s eloquence kept us intrigued as he described some of the beautiful sites he visited in Iran, including the tombs of Esther and Mordechai. We tensed up as he described his lack of freedom there (being tailed and wiretapped constantly) and the troubling issue of Iran’s nuclear program.”
http://www.esra.org.il/esra-audience-was-wowed-british-ambassadors-evening-esra
Interview, Jewish Telegraph.
“You cannot do this job without being a passionate Zionist,” Mr Gould said on a visit to the Jewish Telegraph’s Manchester office.
“It is like making aliya — without actually making aliya.”
http://www.jewishtelegraph.com/prof_67.html
Mr Gould revealed: “Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing our embassy — and America’s — move to Jerusalem.
“That, however, would be dependent upon any future peace settlements.”
http://www.jewishtelegraph.com/prof_67.html
Golly gosh. He does have some very high profile appointments there early in his career.
.
NATO, Security Policy Department.
.
Babysitting a dodgy leftie Foreign Sec.
.
Islamabad, Political Counsellor
.
Tehran, Deputy Head of Mission
.
Washington, Foreign and Security Policy Counsellor
.
HM Ambassador, Tel Aviv
.
Those are some very heavy duty postings. Someone must be very sure he’s one of us.
Eureka!
Found the wikipedia page heavily edited I suppose. Note that at StPaul’s, they link to people’s wikipedia page except for Gould, they link to the JC article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Gould
Or maybe it’s the new one edited by someone here! Sorry!
I have been out of the loop for a few more hours thanks to BT’s ‘upgrading of the servers’ as I was told by a nice Indian lady in their call centre. They obviously choose to do this, affecting London and the whole of the South East*, without any notice. Yet they were able yesterday to send an e-mail advising of large increases in their charges.
.
It was particularly annoying and insulting to be given a web page link to their stupid help site on their recorded messages throughout the morning. Yer the message said that there was ‘an issue in viewing web pages’. Do they and their CEO Ian Livingstone raking in £3m pa incidentally take us for complete fools?
.
In the interim I was able to watch Brodie Clark in front of the Home Affairs Committee and seeing some Conservative Friends of Israel holding the line for Mrs May and attempting to cut the legs from under Mr Clark who seems to be a honourable man and whom I believe. He is a civil servant of 38 years’ standing, with 15 years in senior posts and with a CBE for his services.
.
* Am I being paranoid that this outage has silenced comment at an opportune moment for this government?
.
Changes to your BT account
Your BT account number
.
Hello,
We’re changing our prices. But standard line rental, calls to UK landlines and the cost of our Unlimited Anytime Plan won’t change again until 2013.
We’re making some changes to the prices of our products and services from 3 December 2011. We’re putting up standard monthly line rental by 70p, removing the paper-free discount, and changing some call charges, as well as changing the prices for broadband and some other services. You’ll find all the details here.
We know no one likes it when prices go up. That’s why we’ve kept the rises as low as we can and the cost of more than half of our products and services won’t change at all.
On top of that, the cost of standard monthly line rental, calls to UK* landlines and our Unlimited Anytime Plan won’t rise again until 2013.
Save even more on your line rental
Anyone who was on our paper-free discount could benefit from our Line Rental Saver deal. You can cut your line rental from £14.60 a month to £10 a month by paying up front for a year. That’s over £50 a year off your bill. Sign up here.
(you have to stick to e-billing.)
Keep calling mobiles for less
In May we cut the standard rate for calling mobiles from a BT landline. We were the first company to pass on the savings so that our customers could enjoy cheap calls to mobiles. In fact, BT now offers the cheapest standard pence per minute rates for calls to mobiles compared to our major competitors. And the good news is that we’re not changing these rates, so you’ll carry on getting them.
Find out more about the price changes and our latest money saving deals here.
Thanks for choosing BT,
Warren Buckley
Managing Director, Customer Service
.
*Calls of up to one hour to 01, 02 and 03 numbers, excluding the Channel Islands. Other exclusions apply.
1. £120 for 12 months payable in advance by debit or credit card (equivalent to £10 a month).
Yes Sophia. Today. Someone from here with alacrity.
.
Click on View History
.
(cur | prev) 12:54, 15 November 2011 JaneGrey (talk | contribs) (1,410 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:37, 15 November 2011 JaneGrey (talk | contribs) (1,340 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:33, 15 November 2011 JaneGrey (talk | contribs) (1,201 bytes) (←Created page with ””Matthew Gould”’, born 1971, is the British ambassador to Israel. He was educated at St Paul’s School where he was a contemporary of [[George Osborne]…’)
““The Ambassador kept the audience on the edge of our seats as he described ….We tensed up as he described his lack of freedom there (being tailed and wiretapped constantly)….”
So, not a bit like being a Palestinian, then. He wasn’t shot at.
Crytome has him listed as an MI6 operative – note link via proxy (with highlighter):
https://eu.ixquick-proxy.com/do/sp/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=christopher+story%22+%22matthew+gould&rl=NONE&rid=LELNMLNQMLML&hlq=http://eu.startingpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtengine0=v1all&mtcmd=process_search&mtlanguage=english&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcryptome.org%2Fmi6-list2.htm
Hi Craig, keep up the good work. This is explosive stuff. I have quickly become an addict of your blog. It has become essential reading. Can you keep us updated on how many hits you have had or the number of other sites that have re-posted etc. It’s encouraging for the workers! Keeps the morale of the troops up. Hopefully also a boon for you and your moods. Don’t give up, keep fighting the good fight. We need people like you with the ability and sources to shout from the rooftops, it is generally not people’s fault how blind they are to this. Take care.
Well done Mary and Sophy. So there was a page? Perhaps it was being updated because it now has a link to Craig’s six meetings instead of two.
Gould speaking at haifa uni about Iran’s nuclear program, nov 8th, via association France-Israel, article in French. He refers to the latest IAEA ‘bogus’ report, insists on sanctions as an effective tool to make Iran abandon its nuclear program, and highlight the costly and risky aspect of a war on Iran.
http://www.france-israel.org/articles.ahd?idart=3234
Jon
Many thanks for the reasoned response.
I just start from the straightforward position that conflicts are most effectively resolved, or even better avoided, when there is a recognition of the genuine problems and grievances on all sides of the argument. I could just as easily turn around your sentence and say that one cannot condemn the mechanisms of the military-industrial complex that spends our money on expensive bombs that will land on civilians abroad if one doesn’t also condemn the hanging of gay men from lamp-posts in Iran – but I agree either way. I cannot see how ignoring or seeking to invalidate one side of any argument, or not understanding the opposing claims will ever achieve anything constructive.
Many here accuse me of Zionism and worse – yet they will not find me making a defence or excuses for Deir Yassin, Irgun, the Nabka, Sabra and Chatila, the seizure of land and water rights etc. etc. They all happened and were wrong by any standard. But perhaps my accusers need to recognise that there is a corresponding litany on the Israeli side. There is also absolutely no way other than out and out annihalation of one party by the other that either party will accept that their view has no validity. The consequence of this is that there has to be some compromise and mutual understanding if there is to be any chance of peace and avoiding war.
The one thing I do know is that any political elite (and actually I think the political elites are split on this one) that wants a war against Iran will not want to beat the drum in the open – they will try to make the case against Iran, and It will sound pretty convincing because it is. The response should not be to ignore Iran’s wrongs – because to do so will only strengthen the elite’s arguments and because they are wrongs – but to come up with alternative ways in which they may be addressed. The approach isn’t one of guile – but really one of commonsense.
I can see plenty wrong with how we organise our affairs in the West – although I think that the situation cannot be reduced to the formulaic “military industrial complex” so beloved of 196Os and 70s marxist economists. But I do start from the basic “social democratic” position that here in the west we do have some ability to exercise democratic control over our politicians (not perfect – but certainly better than in many parts of the world) and that a regulated market economy is the least worst way we have found of organising our affairs
Perhaps if the approach to Iraq had been one of dealing with the abuses of Saddam as they arose using international institutions (and yes the West has its share of blame for playing strategic games rather than doing so – but so did Saddam as the perpetrator of 2 invasions, used of wMDs torture etc.) then the last resort of war may have been avoided.
You are right that politicians as a whole do not issue writs for defamation; but what they will do is use as a reason for not answering the questions of those who defame or entering into a debate on the issues that they raise. Craig is now asking the right questions – but they would have been much more effective if they hadn’t been made laoded by his previous post.
Palestinians board an Israeli only designated bus. Livestream on Avaaz.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?cl=1388917802&v=11131
Holy shit!
.
It just gets worse and worse!!
.
http://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/uploads/File/CAMArticles/CAM%2052/My%20Time%20at%20Cambridge.pdf
Israel ASSIST Kenya.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1321360891.html
You meant this presumably Herbie. ex Clare Balding’s entry on the Newnham alumni pages. Our Matthew is/was a good networker/fixer.
I was President in my second
year. I got elected thanks to the
help of a friend at Peterhouse
called Matthew Gould, who
was the brains behind my
manifesto; he eventually became
a speechwriter for the late Robin
Cook. As it was the summer
term – ie. exams – it was
difficult to get people to come
to hear the debates, but there
was a good turn-out when the
Dalai Lama came to speak. He
was a funny man, a real giggler
and a very engaging orator.
One of the motions we debated,
not surprisingly given my
interest in sport, was ‘This
House Believes It’s the Winning,
Not the Taking Part, That
Counts’.
Passerby
I don’t believe there was one. I know people in Wikipedia admin. They see no trace of it having existed. Anyway, I’ve put up a basic article to start.
Mary,
Avaaz is a shadowy organisation with a shadowy agenda. Nobody knows who they are. Palestinians didn’t ask Avaaz to speak in their name but they do it anyway to get a good exposure and a good name. The palestinian cause seems to be serving them more than they serve the Palestinian cause.
Oh dear. Stephen thinks that the military industrial complex is a formula conceived by what he terms 196Os and 70s marxist economists.
.
Sorry darlin but you’ll have to thank Eisenhower for that formula.
.
Have you any idea who he was and why he might know loads about the matter and want to warn everyone about it?
.
No. Thought not.
.
Have a wee watchy watch and get back to us when you have a clue:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Sophia. Yes I know. Soros funded I think. I have never signed any of their ‘petitions’ or sent them money. I just thought the Livestream was interesting.
The new Gould page has just been set up, the original page sporting his pic has gone down the memory hole.
,
The gulling fact is; Avigdor Lieberman the Israeli minister denied access to intelligence , whilst these dual loyal characters are given unfettered access to policy making circles, without so much as raised eyebrow.
,
The ambassador apologising to a terrorists daughter (Ms. Livni) for detention of her parents, whom were members of Irgun, well the pandering to zionist scum could not be any more obvious, could it?
,
That is whilst the Bicom pimp master Lorna Fitzsimons is reported to have said that: ‘public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain. Foreign policy is an elite issue The same luminary then has pontificated Our enemies are going to international courts where we are not supreme.