John Simkin

I thought it might be worthwhile to reflect on Lance’s advice concerning dissemination. Lance argued that we should make much more use of local television and radio stations to publicize E-HELP. It seems we have wasted the opportunity to do this in previous meetings. For example, I am sure local radio and television would have covered Lance’s presentation on Thursday. Is it possible to still get some information on this in the local press? Nico has posted some great pictures of Lance’s presentation. The second important point Lance made concerned the use of surveys. It is true that the British media is obsessed with survey results. We are in a good position to do this as we have access to students all over Europe. I propose we carry out a two-part survey. The first should concentrate on student knowledge on European history. We can use this information to compare the results of different countries. The second-part will be a study of the extent that students experience the latest technology in the classroom. As Lance pointed out, the national press will probably be more interested in the first-part of the survey. However, we could do our best to link both parts of the survey together and to suggest that our E-HELP courses and website will be the answer to this problem. I liked Lance’s idea of targeting right-wing newspapers on a Sunday. As he pointed out, Monday’s papers often give the story a more liberal spin. It is also a story we might be able to get on national television or radio (Steve Wright on BBC Radio 2 always includes survey results on his afternoon show.) If not, local television and radio are sure to use this material.

Or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or that Elvis Presley killed Marilyn Monroe, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Illuminati rule the world. Where, why and how do you draw the line? The point is that all cases should be judged on their own merits. Why do you seek to lump them altogether? I do not believe in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, UFOs, the idea that the moon landings were faked, that the Illuminati rule the world or any conspiracy involving Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley. I have argued that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that the full story of Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal has never been told, that Tony Blair lied about the reasons why the UK carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq and that the current government has been involved in a series of corrupt activities concerning PFI, honours and arms deals. I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist.

I promised to add a 200 or so word description of your websites to my Spartacus Teacher Resources Directory. Richard Allaway seems to be very efficient. As well as being the first to post his seminar he has also sent me the necessary information this morning. I have added it here: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVgeography.htm

Thank you for posting your seminar so quickly. I used your instructions to explore my local schools. However, it is currently so blurred that it will be of no use to local teachers. I am using a version that is about nine months old. Does Google automatically update its photographs or do I need to download the latest version myself?

Andy and myself have been at a conference in Toulouse for the last week. We have therefore been unable to moderate the Forum. Even so, it is impossible for us to read and delete every attack one member makes on another. In fact, we are reluctant to delete anybody's postings. It would indeed be a full-time job deleting attacks on Jack (although he is not slow to attack others). Recently I have received several emails from members calling for other members to have their postings of membership of the forum deleted. I have to warn you that I am very unlikely to resort to this form of censorship. As someone who had their membership deleted from Jack White's friends forum, I am not very sympathetic to his calls to censor members who criticise his theories.

I think we will achieve a great deal more if we avoid unpleasant attacks on other members. I also think it is ironical that someone makes basic grammatical mistakes in his own attack on the grammar of others: "thats" "that is" "i will" "I will" "english usage optional" "English usage optional" "I'm going over to tim gratz place for cuban dance lessons" "I'm going over to Tim Gratz's place for Cuban dance lessons." As this forum is read by students I am very keen that the posts are grammatically accurate. That includes the correct use of capital letters. However, most observers will conclude that if a member concentrates on the grammatical mistakes of another member, this is in itself a recognition that you might be short of logical arguments concerning the content of the posting you are addressing.

I also hope to write an account for the TES. Hopefully I will be able to take the information from the seminar threads.

In my opinion it was the best meeting so far. Great contributions from associates but Saturday's trip was amazing. Wine tasting at the Domaine d'Escausses, Gaillac and the long dinner at Le Grand Ecuyer, Cordes, was an experience I will never forget. Thank you Les and Richard for organizing such a special day. http://www.escausses.com/ http://www.thuries.fr/gastronomie/lge_hotel.php

According to Leo Damore, the hit was carried out by William L. Mitchell. He was an army lieutenant who actually gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial of Raymond Crump. According to Damore, Mitchell confessed to the crime after he caught up with him on 30th March, 1993. Mitchell was listed in the Department of Defense Directory in 1964. However, further research revealed that this was a CIA cover name and the army denies all knowledge of him. It is almost certain that Leo Damore did kill himself. However, the background to why he became so depressed is highly significant. It was a journey that several investigative journalists have taken.

It is indeed true that “nothing could be achieved in opposition, unless one was in politics only to admire the purity of one's own principles”. The problem for any government based on a desire to change society for the better, is how much do you compromise your principles in order to gain and hold onto power. The danger, as in the case of Tony Blair, is the primary objective is to hold power. Nor do I accept the point that by “the Labour Party is the only vehicle for radical reform capable of achieving anything in this country and that if you turn against it, however great your disappointments, you only help its enemies on the right”. In the past the Liberal Party obtained radical reform and in future, other parties, might be able to introduce important legislation. I know that our corrupt political system works against this, but the two party system is not unchangeable. I also share your dislike of the Tories, and however left-wing David Cameron attempts to portray himself, I would never vote for such a party. The idea that criticism of the Labour leadership helps “its enemies on the right” is not a new argument. It was of course used by the Harold Wilson government in the 1960s when people like myself criticized the Labour leadership for not condemning the Vietnam War. In fact, the left of the party was constantly being threatened with expulsion. (However, Wilson could always deal with hecklers by verbal wit and did not resort to having his critics dragged from the conference hall like Tony Blair.) The criticism was in fact effective as it stopped Wilson from sending UK troops to Vietnam. It is hoped that criticism from within and without the Labour Party helps to moderate Blair’s right-wing policies. The criticism of Tony Blair will not lead to a Conservative government. One of Blair’s great achievements is to make the Conservatives a regional party. In many areas of the country, it is the Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats that provide the main opposition to Labour. The most Cameron can hope for in the next election is to deprive Labour of outright power. I would agree that New Labour has done some good things: “the national minimum wage… significantly reversed the decline in Britain's overseas aid budget, legislated for equality for same sex couples, ended unemployment as a tool of economic management, brought in new rights at work for women, devolved real power to Scotland and Wales.” I especially liked devolution because by the use of coalition administrations, they have been able to show that you do not need examination league tables and student tuition fees. It is also true that New Labour has increased spending on education and the NHS. However, you need to consider the way that money has been spent. PFI has resulted in large-scale government corruption. It also immorally transfers the cost of these projects to future generations. The educational reforms have also been disastrous. Have a chat to Alistair Campbell’s partner if you don’t believe me. The one thing that has united the teaching profession in recent years was the Tomlinson Report. Yet Blair rejected the key proposals and completely messed up Tomlinson’s attempt to reform education. The introduction of academies and specialist schools has not only undermined comprehensive education but has encouraged corruption in government. In fact, this is my main criticism of Tony Blair, he has done more than any other politician in our history to corrupt political life. In this sense he is a far more dangerous figure than Margaret Thatcher. He is also more right-wing than Thatcher. This is what Neal Lawson, chair of the pressure group Compass, had to say in the Guardian yesterday: “in politics, only those least likely to do something can actually do it. If only Nixon could go to China then only Blair could embed neoliberalism by daring to go where Thatcher feared to tread, commercialising higher education through tuition fees, schools through trusts and hospitals through foundations.” Lawson goes onto argue that: “The jaw-dropping reality just dawning on some Labour politicians is that David Cameron might not simply be Thatcher in trousers. Their iron law of politics - that Tories are always rightwing extremists - is being invalidated before their eyes. Cameron was supposed to be like Hague and Howard, a wolf in sheep's clothing. This suited New Labour's whole electoral strategy because it allowed them to keep trimming to the right, safe in the knowledge the Tories would be more extreme. Sensibly, Cameron refuses to play this game and has opted instead to leapfrog New Labour into the acres of space to the left. This is the world the public lives in.” Of course, the Tories will not deliver on these new left-wing policies, but the New Labour Project has made it possible for this change in strategy. As Lawson points out: “In a world cut loose from the anchor of ideological politics, exacerbated by first-past-the-post voting, politicians cannot be themselves, becoming instead like their opponents. Parties take their core voters for granted because they have nowhere else to go, and define themselves against their core beliefs.” You claim that “the philosophy of New Labour is not socialist, however. It is broadly social democratic. It seeks to promote both economic prosperity and social justice.” I think it is fairly meaningless to state that a political party is in favour of “economic prosperity and social justice”. Surely all parties, including the Tory Party, would say the same thing? I am aware that Blair likes to identify himself as being “social democratic”. This is no doubt a reference to political parties in Scandinavia that use the term “social democratic” to describe socialist parties. The problem is that these parties really are socialist parties. This can be witnessed by the way inequalities have been reduced in these countries. Whereas under Blair’s New Labour, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Despite the failings of previous Labour governments, inequalities were reduced during their periods of office. The main way this was done was through the tax system. However, when Blair gained power he made it quite clear that he intended to stick to Thatcher’s low-rate of income tax on the wealthy. Tax has of course gone up under New Labour, but this as a result of increases in regressive taxes that mainly puts a burden on those who can least afford to pay it. Why would a so-called Labour government adopt such reactionary policies. Could it have something to do with the funding of the Labour Party? Why have so many multimillionaires been so keen to fund the Labour Party? Why have those press barons like Rupert Murdoch decided for the first time to give a Labour government an easy ride? Might it be because Blair follows policies that they like? For example, low-rates of tax for multimillionaires. Not that these people pay much tax. What happened to all these tax loopholes that Gordon Brown promised to close? Of course, that would have upset our friend Rupert Murdoch, who might have had to start paying UK taxes. Then there is Tony Blair close relationship with other right-wing political extremists like George Bush. What about Blair’s lying and conniving in order to launch an illegal invasion of Iraq? Is Blair on a percentage of the profits being made by Halliburton? Or does he just have to be satisfied by the £3.5 million contract that he has obtained from Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins book deal. According to Murdoch, his 179 newspapers were in favour of the Iraq invasion because it would result in a fall in oil prices and help to stimulate share prices. That failed to happen but I suspect he still had to keep to his side of the bargain.

No doubt Andy will end up saying that he was only joking but as this is an educational forum and so it is important to treat his comments as being serious. Not for the first time Andy has tried to link the people he disagrees with as being somehow anti-Jewish racists. This is intellectually dishonest and politically offensive. It is indeed true that Hitler believed in a Jewish conspiracy. People of all political persuasions believe in conspiracies. In fact, everyone believes in conspiracies of some sort or the other. It is absurd to link all conspiracies together. It is true that a small percentage of the population are suffering from a mental condition that convinces them that they are a victim of some sort of giant conspiracy. However, these people are usually hospitalized and this description is not relevant to the mental state of members of this forum. First of all let us work out what Andy is actually saying. According to my dictionary a “conspiracy” is “a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act; a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot); a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose.” As Professor Gerald McKnight said on another thread: “The reality is, of course, that while not all history is a conspiracy there are conspiracies in history. It is a topic that has as much validity as say the politics of railroad building or migration patterns in Missouri.” The idea that critics of the official version of the truth should be described as a “conspiracy theorist” can be traced back to a secret CIA document (#1035-960) written in response to the publication of Mark Lane’s book, Rush to Judgement in 1966. The document encourages agents to make use of “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” and “to employ propaganda assets to negate and refute the attacks of the critics”. The document goes on to suggest that it is important to “point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists”. Interestingly, the CIA document encourages agents to make use of the case of Nazi Germany. “The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)” The whole purpose of labelling critics of the Warren Commission report as “conspiracy theorists” or “communist propagandists” is an attempt to marginalize them and to prevent other historians and journalists from entering this arena. It was one of the CIA’s most successful operations and has even convinced some fairly intelligent people. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it has become part of the dominant ideology. This is not only true of the capitalist world. Even in communist countries like China and Cuba, the government is likely to label critics as being “conspiracy theorists”. If we go by the definition of conspiracies above, it is clear that political conspiracies are not uncommon. The reason for this is that those in power have to resort to this tactic in order to keep certain actions from the public. In virtually all cases, conspiracies have usually been aimed against those who pose a threat to the status quo. Another significant ingredient is the use of the intelligence services. This is important as the demands for the release of the necessary documents can be rejected on the grounds of national security. One of the earliest examples of a political conspiracy concerning the intelligence services took place in 1924. The story begins in the previous year when the Labour Party won 191 seats in the general election. Although the Conservatives had 258, Ramsay MacDonald agreed to head a minority government, and therefore became the first member of the party to become Prime Minister. This created panic amongst the ruling classes and a conspiracy was developed between MI5 and the capitalist press to destroy the reputation of the Labour Party. In October 1924 MI5 claimed they had intercepted a letter written by Grigory Zinoviev, chairman of the Comintern in the Soviet Union. The Zinoviev letter urged British communists to promote revolution through acts of sedition. Vernon Kell, head of MI5 and Sir Basil Thomson head of Special Branch, told MacDonald that they were convinced that the letter was genuine. It was agreed that the letter should be kept secret but the contents of this forged letter was passed to the editors of the Times and the Daily Mail. The letter was published in these newspapers four days before the 1924 General Election and contributed to the defeat of MacDonald. The Conservatives won 412 seats and formed the next government. It is only since the declassification of MI5 documents that historians have been able to discover that the forged letter was created by two MI5's agents, Sidney Reilly and Arthur Maundy Gregory. This letter was passed to another MI5 agent, Major Joseph Ball, who leaked it to the press. In 1927 Ball went to work for the Conservative Central Office where he pioneered the idea of spin-doctoring. Research carried out by Gill Bennett in 1999 suggested that there were several MI5 and MI6 officers attempting the bring down the Labour Government in 1924, including Stewart Menzies, the future head of MI6. Of course some left-wing journalists claimed in 1924 that the Zinoviev letter was part of a conspiracy to bring down the first Labour government in British history. They were of course dismissed at the time as “communists” and unfortunately, because of the power of the state, it remained just a theory for over 50 years. It is fairly easy to prove a conspiracy theory from the distant past. Unfortunately, when these conspiracies are exposed, the media usually ignores the story and the general public, including some people who teach history for a living, become unaware of it. For example, in the late 1940s left-wing journalists claimed that the newly formed CIA was involved in a conspiracy to turn the post-war Labour government to the right. The reason for this was the American government had been very concerned by what they considered to be the implementation of “socialist” policies such as the introduction of the National Health Service and the nationalization of some key industries. In June, 1975, Tom Braden gave an interview to the producers of a Granada television documentary (World in Action: The Rise and Fall of the CIA). In the late 1940s and early 1950s Braden had been head of International Organizations Division (IOD), a unit within the CIA. He admitted that he used CIA money to bribe Labour politicians and trade union leaders to advocate and carry-out right-wing policies. As he admitted in the interview: “the funds were not only unaccountable, they were unvouchered, so there was really no means of checking them.... If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe - a Labour leader - suppose he just thought, this man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... They were handed out for work well performed or in order to perform work well.... Politicians in Europe, particularly right after the war, got a lot of money from the CIA.... Since it was unaccountable, it could hire as many people as it wanted. It never had to say to any committee - no committee said to it – ‘You can only have so many men.’ It could do exactly as it pleased. It made preparations therefore for every contingency. It could hire armies; it could buy banks. There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war - the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first.” When Braden’s interview was broadcast it created little attention, despite the fact that several of the politicians were still active in Labour Party politics. One was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who at the time was openly implementing the policies of the IMF. Maybe he was still in the pay of the CIA. Those accused of being “conspiracy theorists” are often associated with the study of recent political events in the United States. In reality, these events have already been officially admitted as being “conspiracies”. For example, in 1979 the House Select Committee on Assassinations that had been established by Congress reported that John F. Kennedy had been killed as part of a conspiracy. This was confirmed two years later when G. Robert Blakey, the HSCA’s chief counsel, published his book, The Plot to Kill the President. The deputy chief counsel, Gary Cornwell, also published a book, Real Answers, where he supported the HSCA’s view that JFK had been killed as part of a conspiracy. Gaeton Fonzi, the HSCA’s chief investigator, published his book, The Last Investigation, in 1993, where he provided the evidence for his view that JFK had been killed as part of a plot that included the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans. Unfortunately, Blakey, Cornwell and Fonzi were not able to provide complete details of their investigation as the CIA and FBI have refused permission for the HSCA to publish all the files they had seen while investigating the assassination. It has been announced that all HSCA documents will not be published until 2017. Let us hope that Andy Walker is still alive to find out what is in these documents that the FBI and CIA do not want us to see. Documents are always emerging. Doug Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (August 1995 - September 1998) allowed me to post of the forum yesterday a FBI document dated 22nd November, 1963, that he had obtained during his work for the ARRB. This document shows that two bullets were discovered during the autopsy and one was lodged behind Kennedy’s ear. What happened to these bullets? Were they destroyed because they did not come from Oswald’s gun? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=6849&st=15 What about the other conspiracies that members of the forum discuss. Was Watergate a conspiracy? Well it was according to the official Congressional investigation headed by Sam Ervin. This was confirmed with the publication of the White House tapes and Richard Nixon was forced to resign and others were sent to prison for their role in the conspiracy. Was the Iran-Contra scandal a conspiracy? Well it was according to the official report written by Lawrence E. Walsh. In "Iran-Contra: The Final Report " (1994) he details what took place and names some of the people, including government officials and CIA officers, involved in the conspiracy. However, as Walsh admits, because of the unwillingness of people like Ronald Reagan and George Bush to be interviewed under oath, it was difficult to discover the full scale of the conspiracy. The issue is not whether the assassination of JFK, Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal are examples of conspiracies? The main concern of researchers is to discover the full extent of these conspiracies. This can only be done by getting hold of the documents that are currently classified or by persuading people involved in these conspiracies to talk. Both of these things are difficult to do, but I think it is worth doing. Personally, I don’t think we can honestly say that we live in a democratic state if we allow our governments to lie about what really happened in the past. It is why I am determined to investigate these events to the best of my ability. To be labeled as a “conspiracy theorist” or as being “emotionally unstable” is a punishment I am willing to accept.

It is indeed true that “nothing could be achieved in opposition, unless one was in politics only to admire the purity of one's own principles”. The problem for any government based on a desire to change society for the better, is how much do you compromise your principles in order to gain and hold onto power. The danger, as in the case of Tony Blair, is the primary objective is to hold power. Nor do I accept the point that by “the Labour Party is the only vehicle for radical reform capable of achieving anything in this country and that if you turn against it, however great your disappointments, you only help its enemies on the right”. In the past the Liberal Party obtained radical reform and in future, other parties, might be able to introduce important legislation. I know that our corrupt political system works against this, but the two party system is not unchangeable. I also share your dislike of the Tories, and however left-wing David Cameron attempts to portray himself, I would never vote for such a party. The idea that criticism of the Labour leadership helps “its enemies on the right” is not a new argument. It was of course used by the Harold Wilson government in the 1960s when people like myself criticized the Labour leadership for not condemning the Vietnam War. In fact, the left of the party was constantly being threatened with expulsion. (However, Wilson could always deal with hecklers by verbal wit and did not resort to having his critics dragged from the conference hall like Tony Blair.) The criticism was in fact effective as it stopped Wilson from sending UK troops to Vietnam. It is hoped that criticism from within and without the Labour Party helps to moderate Blair’s right-wing policies. The criticism of Tony Blair will not lead to a Conservative government. One of Blair’s great achievements is to make the Conservatives a regional party. In many areas of the country, it is the Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats that provide the main opposition to Labour. The most Cameron can hope for in the next election is to deprive Labour of outright power. I would agree that New Labour has done some good things: “the national minimum wage… significantly reversed the decline in Britain's overseas aid budget, legislated for equality for same sex couples, ended unemployment as a tool of economic management, brought in new rights at work for women, devolved real power to Scotland and Wales.” I especially liked devolution because by the use of coalition administrations, they have been able to show that you do not need examination league tables and student tuition fees. It is also true that New Labour has increased spending on education and the NHS. However, you need to consider the way that money has been spent. PFI has resulted in large-scale government corruption. It also immorally transfers the cost of these projects to future generations. The educational reforms have also been disastrous. Have a chat to Alistair Campbell’s partner if you don’t believe me. The one thing that has united the teaching profession in recent years was the Tomlinson Report. Yet Blair rejected the key proposals and completely messed up Tomlinson’s attempt to reform education. The introduction of academies and specialist schools has not only undermined comprehensive education but has encouraged corruption in government. In fact, this is my main criticism of Tony Blair, he has done more than any other politician in our history to corrupt political life. In this sense he is a far more dangerous figure than Margaret Thatcher. He is also more right-wing than Thatcher. This is what Neal Lawson, chair of the pressure group Compass, had to say in the Guardian yesterday: “in politics, only those least likely to do something can actually do it. If only Nixon could go to China then only Blair could embed neoliberalism by daring to go where Thatcher feared to tread, commercialising higher education through tuition fees, schools through trusts and hospitals through foundations.” Lawson goes onto argue that: “The jaw-dropping reality just dawning on some Labour politicians is that David Cameron might not simply be Thatcher in trousers. Their iron law of politics - that Tories are always rightwing extremists - is being invalidated before their eyes. Cameron was supposed to be like Hague and Howard, a wolf in sheep's clothing. This suited New Labour's whole electoral strategy because it allowed them to keep trimming to the right, safe in the knowledge the Tories would be more extreme. Sensibly, Cameron refuses to play this game and has opted instead to leapfrog New Labour into the acres of space to the left. This is the world the public lives in.” Of course, the Tories will not deliver on these new left-wing policies, but the New Labour Project has made it possible for this change in strategy. As Lawson points out: “In a world cut loose from the anchor of ideological politics, exacerbated by first-past-the-post voting, politicians cannot be themselves, becoming instead like their opponents. Parties take their core voters for granted because they have nowhere else to go, and define themselves against their core beliefs.” You claim that “the philosophy of New Labour is not socialist, however. It is broadly social democratic. It seeks to promote both economic prosperity and social justice.” I think it is fairly meaningless to state that a political party is in favour of “economic prosperity and social justice”. Surely all parties, including the Tory Party, would say the same thing? I am aware that Blair likes to identify himself as being “social democratic”. This is no doubt a reference to political parties in Scandinavia that use the term “social democratic” to describe socialist parties. The problem is that these parties really are socialist parties. This can be witnessed by the way inequalities have been reduced in these countries. Whereas under Blair’s New Labour, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Despite the failings of previous Labour governments, inequalities were reduced during their periods of office. The main way this was done was through the tax system. However, when Blair gained power he made it quite clear that he intended to stick to Thatcher’s low-rate of income tax on the wealthy. Tax has of course gone up under New Labour, but this as a result of increases in regressive taxes that mainly puts a burden on those who can least afford to pay it. Why would a so-called Labour government adopt such reactionary policies. Could it have something to do with the funding of the Labour Party? Why have so many multimillionaires been so keen to fund the Labour Party? Why have those press barons like Rupert Murdoch decided for the first time to give a Labour government an easy ride? Might it be because Blair follows policies that they like? For example, low-rates of tax for multimillionaires. Not that these people pay much tax. What happened to all these tax loopholes that Gordon Brown promised to close? Of course, that would have upset our friend Rupert Murdoch, who might have had to start paying UK taxes. Then there is Tony Blair close relationship with other right-wing political extremists like George Bush. What about Blair’s lying and conniving in order to launch an illegal invasion of Iraq? Is Blair on a percentage of the profits being made by Halliburton? Or does he just have to be satisfied by the £3.5 million contract that he has obtained from Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins book deal. According to Murdoch, his 179 newspapers were in favour of the Iraq invasion because it would result in a fall in oil prices and help to stimulate share prices. That failed to happen but I suspect he still had to keep to his side of the bargain.

I believe that this is the most important thread that has been created since the formation of the Forum. Please make sure you read these documents and Doug Horne's commentary.

Wales have several players who play in the premiership (including three from West Ham and the great Ryan Griggs). That was not the case on Saturday. They did not have one players who plays in the first team of the premiership or any other top league. And boy did it show.

The Society of Authors this week called on examination boards to stop endorsing GCSE and A Level textbooks claiming that the "immoral" practice is damaging education. Boards are profiting by selling endorsement rights to publishers who then produce books which are so closely geared to test preparation that they are little more than crib-sheets. In 2003 Pearson, the world's biggest educational publisher, bought Edexcel. Last December another board, AQA, entered into an exclusive deal with Nelson Thornes, endorsing only its resources.

The last two warm up games have told us that Owen cannot play as a lone striker and the Hargreaves cannot play as the holding midfielder. It now seems that Eriksson will now play Crouch with Owen. It worked on Saturday against the worse international side I have ever seen. Will it work in the World Cup? Unlikely, but his selection policy means that we have no other realistic option.

Internet advertising went up by 73% in 2006 compared to the previous year, yet total press advertising went down 3%. Spending on press advertising has gone down for the past ten years. Newspaper circulation is also down. The tabloids have suffered the greatest fall. It seems people only buy these papers for the pictures. Therefore they are beginning to switch to celebrity magazines. The main danger to newspapers is the movement in classified ads to the web. This will ultimately destroy the economic base of the industry. Unless they adapt, newspapers will cease to exist. According to one study, 75% of the population go online every day. Most youngsters get their news from the web rather than from newspapers. This is causing a change in the power structure. Press barons like Murdoch are losing their power base. Individual journalists with their own websites or working in cooperatives will become the main news source in competition to organizations like the BBC. This will have political consequences. All part of the internet revolution.

Interesting article by Ian Gibson, the Labour MP for Norwich North who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Cuba Tuesday June 6, 2006 The Guardian Faced with a loss of influence in Latin America as a result of the shift to the left, the US government has been furiously lobbying sympathetic European states to create political leverage on Washington's behalf. As a partner in a "special relationship", Whitehall is a prime target. The first test of the new US strategy towards its recalcitrant neighbours will come next week when the EU meets to agree a united approach to relations with Cuba. The "common position" will set out a policy for engagement with the Havana administration and is binding on member states. The threat is of a shift towards a diplomatic freeze, or even sanctions against the Caribbean island. Those of us who have observed Cuba's social system remain perplexed by the following contradiction: that the determination to "make poverty history" attracts strong support from the EU in principle, yet when a country takes steps to ensure the concept becomes reality, a disapproving silence ensues. This has been demonstrated in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and even Argentina. Cuba is the only country in Latin America that does not receive assistance from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which are supposed to contribute to the development of third world countries. It is also the only nation on the continent with whom the EU has not signed a cooperation agreement. Yet social advances continue, underpinned by moderate but consistent economic growth. The UN recently announced that Cuba is the only country in Latin America that has no malnutrition. The World Health Organisation reports that the Cuban doctor-patient ratio is 1:170, better than the US average of 1:188. In addition, WHO has commended Cuba for outstanding literacy levels and rates of infant mortality and life expectancy that outstrip Washington DC - despite 45 years of an illegal economic blockade imposed by successive US administrations. Cuba's international activities also deserve recognition. It is operating humanitarian missions in 68 countries and, in 2005 alone, 1,800 doctors from 47 developing countries graduated in Cuba under a free scholarship scheme. Yet western governments - including our own - offer little acknowledgement of these achievements. The Foreign Office explains it "cannot have normal relations with Cuba" due to human-rights concerns. Amnesty International claims that 72 prisoners of conscience are detained in Cuban jails, an allegation rejected by the Cuban government, which argues that all were tried and found guilty of being in the pay of an enemy power - the US. The International Red Cross has meanwhile reported that up to 40,000 people are detained by coalition forces in Iraq without charge. If we are to promote the eradication of poverty and greater global cohesion, there must be a sense of justice and mutual respect. Our government should promote exchanges with nations like Cuba and see what we can learn from one another. Scope exists for cooperation in biotechnology. Vaccine exports from Cuba doubled last year and clinical trials in several countries established Cuba as a world leader in cancer research and treatment. It must be hoped that the EU will resist US pressure, despite the tendency of countries like Poland and the Czech Republic to rush to do Washington's bidding. More than 170 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for an independent positive approach to Cuba in the Brussels negotiations. They recognise that there is much to gain from cooperation with Latin America but, as recent history reminds us, much to be lost from policies of isolation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1791253,00.html

Page 7

Pages 5 and 6.

Most critics believe that the French team is too old to win the World Cup. Three key players, Zidane, Thuram and Makelele have come out of international retirement to play. However, they still have Henry, Vieira and Ribery. In my view they will go very close to winning it.

Italy still have a great defence (based around Alessandro Nesta and Fabio Cannavaro) but will they score enough goals. England has problems with the fitness of Michael Owen. Italy has a similar problem with Francesco Totti.

Portugal are bound to entertain with players like Ronaldo, Deco, Simao, Figo, etc. but they blew their best chance of a major honour at Euro 2004.

Pages 3 and 4.

Just a note on the paragraphs that the FBI did not want anyone to see in 1996: Page 2: Paragraphs 2,3 and 4. Page 3: Paragraphs 1 and 2.