Silent Majority Speaks

Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

Spin, not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell the truth. Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004 Blair wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain to me. Peter Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005 I know I'm me - why do I need an ID card? "Sorry, officers, I don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar, for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they told me. "I've also got various credit cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be photographed and given another number, besides my PINs. "I'm afraid I haven't got a pension book; it was taken away." "By thieves, sir?" "No ... well, not exactly. By the Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?" Oh dear, they've disappeared. E. Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005 NO means NO When does NO mean MAYBE? When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent derailing the gravy train. As in Ireland, they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people, and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily Mail, June1, 2005 Surely the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1, 2005

May 11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media 

May 31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

June 3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media

June 17, 2005 (779 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media

June 26, 2005 (788 days since war ended)

Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

Britain has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals. According to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55 per head of population. The French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their population.

STOP PRESS

Did they plan Iraq war for 18 months?

Lone crusader forces Foreign Office admission

By Paul Eastham - Deputy Political Editor - Daily Mail, June 29, 2005

The war in Iraq returned to haunt Blair yesterday as evidence emerged he had been considering the invasion for 18 months. In a significant admission, the Foreign Office revealed the Government first sought advice on the legality of ousting Saddam within days of the September 11 outrage. They said an official 'acting on her own initiative' requested guidance on 'either 26 or 27 November 2001'. The information was forced out of Whitehall by a member of the public using the Freedom of Information Act.

It raises an intriguing question over the Prime Minister's declaration the next day - the 28th - in the Commons that extending the coalition action from Afghanistan to Iraq would not be justified.

"I have not seen any evidence to link Iraq directly with Al Qaeda," he added. As he sat down his aides argued there was 'no evidence' to justify an attack on Iraq. The Premier went on to claim repeatedly right up until the eve of war in March 2003 that 'no decisions' had been taken to join the US-led invasion. Foreign Office chiefs were forced to make the latest disclosure after a 5-month campaign by a Daily Mail reader, Marc Ollusson.

Writing to Mr Ollosson, the Foreign Office revealed that a civil servant acting on her own initiative consulted Government lawyers after hearing President Bush's replies to a press conference. Asked whether he intended to extend the War on Terror from Afghanistan to Iraq, Mr Bush warned Saddam to let weapons inspectors in. Asked what would happen if he did not comply, Mr Bush declared: "He'll find out."

The new timetable set out in the letter suggests Ministers were considering the prospect of invading Iraq months earlier than previously admitted - without telling Parliament of the public. Until now the Government has refused to reveal the date it first sought legal advice on the Iraq war, saying it might 'harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion'.

Before yesterday, the earliest date that the legality of military action was believed to have been under active consideration was April 9, 2002, a day after Mr Blair met Mr Bush at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. At that meeting Mr Blair is believed to stress the need to get the backing of the UN for an Iraq war if he was going to swing Parliament behind the invasion.

But in the letter to Mr Ollosson, the Foreign Office threw that timetable into doubt. The Foreign Office letter said: "To the best of our knowledge, the first occasion on which a government official sought legal advice on this matter was on the 26 or 27 November 2001, when an official in the FCO's Middle East Department, on her her own initiative, asked an FCO legal adviser for advice on remarks made by President Bush during a press conference on 26 November 2001.

It went on to explain that she acted after hearing Mr Bush's replies at the press conference. The letter continued: "The FCO legal adviser was therefore asked to advise on the possible legal position on the use of force in this connection. "

These legal consultations contrast with Mr Blair's public position. On January 22, 2003 - with war looming - at a Downing Street press conference he said: "I actually think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves on the issue of Iraq. As I have said before, action is not imminent; we are not at the point of decision."

Last night Mr Ollosson said: "I feel pretty aggrieved. I started all this out of a sense of mistrust. President Bush said he wanted to extend the war of terror, yet Blair was still telling Parliament that he had made no decisions. I don't believe them when they say it was only a minor official working on her own initiative. Having worked in the civil service I know that nobody does anything on their own say-so. I think the public was misled."

If you have suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.