Britannia Radio

2 February 2010 Blair Government : Treason or Malfeasance?   Police Finally Respond After Three Years Delay   Almost three years ago John Gouriet and I presented Scotland Yard with prima facie evidence of malfeasance at  best, and treason at worst, against the prime minister and several members of Mr Blair’s cabinet.  Essentially our  case rested on the fact that his government, like previous governments, had overthrown the constitution of  the United Kingdom by passing sovereign powers to the EU.   The silence from Scotland Yard was deafening.  We were told to wait for a considered reply, but none came in  more than a year. Finally we complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.  Again the silence  was deafening.  Now, suddenly after two years of sketchy, often vague correspondence which was obviously intended to delay  any proper investigation or considered answers, in the last few weeks the Metropolitan Police Authority has asked  us for further particulars.  Quite how or why our complaint leapt from one organisation to the other is a bureaucratic mystery.  Was all this  time wasted whilst various departments batted our hot potato back and forth between themselves?  Were  our allegations and evidence too hot for the IPCC to handle?  Whatever the reason, we have now re-submitted all the original evidence.  There has also been a lengthy exchange  of emails.  The relevant correspondence from us follows:  Further Submission by Ashley Mote and John Gouriet – January 2010  We must start with the central point you raise about the involvement of Sir Ian Blair and others in failing to  consider the facts as presented to Mr Yates in 2007.  As you point out, we also made serious and  well-documented allegations against the BBC.  Even though these two actions were separate, the lack  of a response from the Metropolitan Police to both must inevitably be the subject of our complaint.  You may  take them separately or together.  It matters little to us.  (For the record, Mr Mote now has extensive evidence that the Serious Fraud Office has failed in its duty  to investigate the present government's continuing to fund an organisation it recognises as corrupt and which  is continuously defrauding the British taxpayer - namely the European Union.  There is much detail and  evidence on his website, www.ashleymote.co.uk.  But more of that anon.)  The specific question raised in your letter - namely what evidence do we have of the involvement of Ian Blair -  is an obvious “when did you stop beating your wife” sort of question.  It is self-evidently intended to divert us  from the main issue.  Allow us to spell out the realities here.  We made serious allegations, well documented and supported with a mass of evidence, on what is undoubtedly  the most important constitutional matter of the last 50 years.  Have successive governments broken the law  over British membership of what is now the EU?  Have they knowingly acted ultra vires?  You have our evidence already, but allow us to draw attention to one crucial detail in both the Declaration of  Rights 1688 (an indefinite contract between monarch and people and therefore beyond the reach of  parliament) and the Bill of Rights, 1689, which includes the same clause.  "...no foreign prince, person, prelate,  state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority,  ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."   Much the same text had previously appeared in the Act of Supremacy 1599.  However, while the Act of  Supremacy 1599 has been largely repealed, the Bill of Rights 1689 remains to this day the law of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.   Betty Boothroyd, then Speaker of the House of Commons, confirmed in a reminder to the  Law Courts on 21 July 1993 that the Bill of Rights 1689 stands as statute law in full.   Our case is frighteningly simple - successive British governments have broken the law, and they have done  so knowingly.  Malfeasance at the very least.  Many go further and call it treason.  Either way there is a  prima facie case which the Metropolitan Police has chosen to ignore.    Yet your devious question asks us to believe, to accept, that somehow the senior police office investigating  Tony Blair's government, having received such documentation, would fail to mention it to his superiors!   The circumstantial evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.  No junior officer, however senior in his own  right, would make such a decision on his own and without taking it upstairs.  It is unthinkable.   Ian Blair was  an active supporter of his namesake's government.  Of course he squashed our application for a  rigorous investigation of the facts and the pursuit of justice.  Your question falls, as you must have known it  would. May we now draw your attention to a matter which has arisen since our first submission.  We refer you to the  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, to which the UK is a signatory.   Article 31 declares under  Rule of Interpretation :  “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms  of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.”  In addition to all the evidence we provided to Mr Yates, the meaning and implications of that commitment  entered into by a previous UK government jump into stark reality when viewed in the light of the  recently ratified Lisbon Treaty.  As a Member of the European Parliament at the time Mr Mote was personally made well aware that the Lisbon Treaty was constructed to confuse the people of the member states.  Having had  the previous version (called the Constitutional Treaty) roundly defeated by referenda in France and the  Netherlands, the European Commission set out to produce a document so convoluted and lengthy that few  would ever read it, let along understand it.  Officials boasted about it!  Lisbon was intended to ensure  no government (except Ireland which had a constitutional duty) would have a referendum.  Each could tell  their electorates - and did - the Lisbon Treaty was just “tidying up, too complicated, don't worry about it, we  know what we are doing”.  You bet they did!    The question “why have a constitutional treaty at all if it was  not to create fundamental change?” went unanswered against an EU propaganda machine hailing  platitudinous generalities.  Lisbon was not about ‘tidying up’.  It was even longer than the original, gave the ruling elite even more powers  over the member states, and crucially it reversed the roles between member states and Brussels.  The member  states lost their place as theoretical masters and became - in reality -the servants of the EU's bureaucrats.    Every government, including the British, must - or should -have known this, and chose to connive at this  massive deception of the people they were supposedly elected to represent.  The British government was a party to a prima facie breach of the Vienna Convention on the  Law of Treaties.   Again, a most serious matter which British law-enforcement authorities have chosen to ignore.  Finally, there follows the appendix to Ashley Mote's book Vigilance, first published in 2001.  It was  originally published as a pamphlet Defence of the Realm, a year earlier.  For the record we should say that  the text was read and warmly supported and approved by two eminent constitutional lawyers, one of whom  is a QC.  It also benefited from the knowledge and input of this country's foremost academic student o  British constitutional law.   The committee may find its contents instructive.  (The full text of Defence of the Realm was attached)  A reply dated 7 January 2010 from the Metropolitan Police Authority denied trying to ask a wrecking question,  and asked for further details of other earlier correspondence.  Copies were supplied, together with this second response:  Whether you invented the question asked of us, or you were prompted to ask it, matters little.  What matters was  its clear purpose, which our reply fully and rightly exposed.   Your question was an attempt to undermine the fundamental questions asked of the Metropolitan Police in  fulfilling their lawful duty to enforce the law, regardless of the potential consequences.   Your reaction to our  reply confirms we hit home.  We all know that, in this case, the potential consequences would have a profound impact on the lawful  governance of this country - and so they should.  THAT was, and is, the whole point!  As for the involvement of [Deputy Assistant Commissioner] Janet Williams, you will already know that  Mr Yates passed all the files over to her and advised us that she was now responsible for dealing with the  issues we had raised.  Janet Williams then wrote to say she would be in touch.  Again, logic says she must have taken the  decision to bury/ignore our submissions after consultations upstairs, ie with Ian Blair.   It is simply unthinkable that anyone faced with serious, well-documented accusations against the prime  minister and his cabinet colleagues, no less, would chose unilaterally to ignore them.  May I remind you  that they had the potential to cause the most serious constitutional crisis for more than half a century.   THAT, too, was the point.  More than a year passed before our patience ran out and we embarked on your complaints procedure -  where we still are.  All of the above information is available to you in the complete correspondence between the parties  over these years.  Your latest letter seems to imply you do not have a complete file.  Is that so?  In which  case let me have a secure fax number and I will fax over what I have here.  Finally, you appear to cast doubt on the notion that Ian Blair was openly supportive of Tony Blair's  government.  Astonishing.  One has to ask, where were you all that time?  The rest of the world knew.   It was public knowledge, often commented on in the media, and - more importantly - never denied.   Quite the contrary, indeed.  Ian Blair appeared to take great satisfaction from being part of the Tony Blair  Nu Labour project, and made no secret of it.  Rather than ask questions of us about his involvement, perhaps you should ask him two straight questions -  did you bury these allegations, or instruct your subordinates to do so?  If so, were your reasons political or legal?  How else will your committee get to the heart of the matter?  Ashley Mote (with, and on behalf of John Gouriet) Update: The MPA originally told us our complaint was to be considered on 11 January, but bad weather at the time  meant the meeting had to be postponed.  We are not holding our breath.   To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com Click www.ashleymote.co.uk to visit the site now.