John Simkin

Well it is true. So is the fact that I have to spend time deleting member's double posts.

I have been having problems with the Forum for sometime now. When posting I sometimes get a "cannot find server" message. I then use the backspace and try again. This often works but sometimes I have to try a third time. However, when this happens, I find I have a double or treble post. The large amount of multi-posts we get on the Forum suggests that other members are experiencing the same problem. I have had emails from members who get this problem all the time and have given up trying to post messages. Please persevere. Use the back-space method and I will then delete the unwanted posts.

I have been having problems with the Forum for sometime now. When posting I sometimes get a "cannot find server" message. I then use the backspace and try again. This often works but sometimes I have to try a third time. However, when this happens, I find I have a double or treble post. The large amount of multi-posts we get on the Forum suggests that others are experiencing the same problem. I have had emails from other members who get this problem all the time and have given up trying to post messages. Please persevere. Use the back-space method and I will then delete the unwanted posts.

It might surprise American members that Winston Churchill was easily defeated in the 1945 General Election. After all, he was seen as the man who “won the war”. He was defeated by an unassuming man (Clement Atlee) whose party had not been in power since 1931. In fact, Winston Churchill’s defeat was the largest suffered in the history of the Conservative Party. How could this have happened? The main reason was that Winston Churchill was not trusted to implement the 1942 Beveridge Report. Churchill had commissioned Lord Beveridge to write a report on the best ways of helping people on low incomes. His report proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. Beveridge argued that this system would provide a minimum standard of living "below which no one should be allowed to fall". This was therefore the blueprint of Britain’s Welfare State. The Beveridge Report became part of the Labour Party Manifesto. The idea was very attractive to the people and Clement Attlee easily defeated Winston Churchill in the 1945 election (Labour 393 seats, Conservative 197 seats). The Beveridge proposals were implemented by the Atlee government. In 1946 parliament passed the revolutionary National Insurance Act that created the structure of the Welfare State. The legislation instituted a comprehensive state health service, effective from 5th July 1948. The Act provided for compulsory contributions for unemployment, sickness, maternity and widows' benefits and old age pensions from employers and employees, with the government funding the balance. People in work, except married women, paid 4s 11d a week in National Insurance contributions. For the average worker, this amounted to nearly 5 per cent of their income. James Griffiths, the new Minister of National Insurance, claimed that it was "the best and cheapest insurance policy offered to the British people, of any people anywhere." The government also announced plans for a National Health Service that would be, "free to all who want to use it." Senior members of the medical profession opposed the government's plans. Between 1946 and its introduction in 1948, the British Medical Association (BMA) mounted a vigorous campaign against this proposed legislation. In one survey of doctors carried out in 1948, the BMA claimed that only 4,734 doctors out of the 45,148 polled, were in favour of a National Health Service. The Conservative Party and the major corporations also opposed the scheme. By July 1948, Aneurin Bevan had guided the National Health Service Act safely through Parliament. This legislation provided people in Britain with free diagnosis and treatment of illness, at home or in hospital, as well as dental and ophthalmic services. The National Health Service was expensive and in April 1951, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell, placed a shilling on every prescription and announced that people would have to pay half the cost of dentures and spectacles. As a result of this action, Aneurin Bevan resigned from the government. It later emerged that Gaitskell was receiving money from the CIA’s Thomas Braden (head of the International Organizations Division). The Welfare State was very popular with the British people and so to get elected, the Conservative Party had to change its policy on this issue. Winston Churchill took power again in 1951 but was unable to abolish the Welfare State. In fact, as far as I am aware, no country has ever removed the system once it has been introduced. That is why the American right is so much against it. In theory, all conservatives should be against things like the National Health Service. American critics are right to call it “socialized medicine”. Aneurin Bevan once said that the NHS is an example of socialism in action. Although conservative politicians cannot remove the Welfare State in the UK, they can undermine the way it works. This began with the introduction of prescription charges. Another way is to under fund the system (Margaret Thatcher did this in the 1980s) or to privatize certain aspects of the service. This is what Tony Blair is doing at the moment with PFI (Private Finance Initiative). It is PFI that goes to the heart of the current Blair scandal. See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382 David Low, Evening Standard (July, 1948)

I suppose most members have seen the film, The Parallax View. Here is a good summary of the film by Philip Brubaker: Joe Frady is a determined reporter who often needs to defend his work from colleagues. After the assassination of a prominent U.S. senator, Frady begins to notice that reporters present during the assassination are dying mysteriously. After getting more involved in the case, Frady begins to realize that the assassination was part of a conspiracy somehow involving the Parallax Corporation, an enigmatic training institute. He then decides to enroll for the Parallax training himself to discover the truth. The film is based on the novel by Loren Singer. The book is in fact very different. The assasination in the book is modelled on the JFK killing. However, for the film it was changed to mirror that of the assassination of RFK.

Information emerged over the weekend that suggested there was a link between political contributions and the Iraq War. Apparently, the Tory Party has found a good way to hide political contributions from armed dealers. This is done via “Party Auctions”. For example, David Cameron organized an auction to raise money for the Tory Party. This included an eight-person dinner that was to be provided by the well-known chef, Albert Roux. Rosemary Said, the wife of the Saudi arms dealer, Wafic Said, won the meal with a bid of £100,000. Over the last two years Wafic Said has given £550,000 to the Tories at auctions but none of it has been declared. Not only is Said an arms dealer, he is a foreigner, and legally he is not allowed to fund political parties in the UK. Auctions are a good way of hiding contributions from dubious characters. If the Tories are up to this, I suspect New Labour is also doing this.

MapMuse contains interactive mapping of American history topics. Some of the topics we have mapped are Civil War Battles, Civil War Sites, the Underground Railroad, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Presidential Birthplaces, Presidential Burial Sites, Presidential Libraries, and Railroad Attractions. The link to History Directory is as follows: http://find.mapmuse.com/re1/mmHomeInterest...php?cat=History You can add additional information about places yourself including both text and photos. There is an Add and Edit feature on the site (it is very easy to do- you can refer to http://find.mapmuse.com/re1/mmFAQ.htm#A4 for complete instructions). Through this kind of community effort, it is hoped to have the most comprehensive, and descriptive maps for American history enthusiasts.

http://www.lyricstrax.com/

Tristram Hunt is the author of Building Jerusalem: the Rise and Fall of the Victorian City. This article looks at the issue of how we interpret the past: Tristram Hunt Saturday March 25, 2006 The Guardian As befits the MP for Hull, John Prescott has assumed William Wilberforce's mantle and placed himself in charge of next year's 200th anniversary of the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in British ships. It promises to be a suitably august commemoration with an exhibition in Parliament Hall, renovated museums in Liverpool and Hull, and academic conferences. But if the anniversary is to have any lasting value, the heritage sector must say something more challenging about Britain's multiracial past. To historians such as Richard Beck, the story of the slave trade is a morality play with the British cast as evil knaves. Profits from the bloody trade secured the imperial hegemony of Georgian England. It was only brought to an end in 1807 because of the move from a colonial sugar trade to industrial capitalism. There was nothing noble about abolition and the proper response today is a comprehensive package of reparations. By contrast, Whiggish champions of Britain's imperial past point to 1807 as symbolic of our "good empire". It was a heroic moment when idealism trumped materialism as the Royal Navy scoured the seas for illegal slave ships. This is the story of Rule Britannia, William Wilberforce and the Society of Friends. Certainly, the slave economy underpinned the riches of 18th century society. It also had a dominating influence across the British politico-financial establishment. Institutional investors in slavery included the Hanoverian royal family, numerous Oxbridge colleges and even the Church of England. This needs to be the starting point for any commemoration. As Professor James Walvin has commented: "My worry about 2007 is that there will be such a euphoria of nationalistic pride that people will forget what happened before, which was that the British had shipped extraordinary numbers of Africans across the Atlantic." And in what conditions. The barbarity of the Middle Passage often led to 30% mortality rates among the 10 million slaves shipped across the Atlantic. They were shackled together and laid back to back for weeks on end; suicide and self-mutilation were daily occurrences. The lingering stench of vomit, sweat and faeces worked its way into the very planks of the ships. One escaped slave described how "the shrieks of the women and the groans of the dying rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable". The response of good, Christian British captains was to throw sick slaves overboard - and then claim insurance on the lost cargo. Despite its barbarity, ending this lucrative trade was an uphill struggle. Few today would go so far as to hail it, as one contemporary did, as "the most altruistic act since Christ's crucifixion", but halting trafficking had serious economic costs. Yet the moral certitude of Wilberforce and his evangelical allies convinced MPs, many of whom had slaving interests, of the ethical case for abolishing "the foul iniquity". However, this had as much to do with purifying England from the taint of slavery as any great humanitarian concern for slaves. There was little sense of racial equality, and a new image of the ever-grateful black subject subsequently developed - seen to greatest effect in Josiah Wedgwood's cameo of a slave kneeling in chains. The inscription read: "Am I not a man and a brother?" But few among Wilberforce's Clapham Sect honestly thought so. This is a complex, nuanced story for curators and councils to grapple with. What this must mean in terms of commemoration is a new emphasis on the black voice within the abolitionist movement. The contribution of such anti-slavery activists as Olaudah Equiano, Phillis Wheatley and Ignatius Sancho in mobilising society needs to be appreciated alongside the role of white parliamentarians. The commemorations must also extend beyond the port cities. Slavery infected the Georgian economy as readily as oil underpins business today. The cotton mills of Lancashire and metal industries of the Black Country were seamlessly interwoven with the Atlantic trade, as were the riches of those aristocrats who dwelt innocuously in Mansfield Parks erected on the back of slave ships and sugar plantations. So while the planned slavery museum in Liverpool is to be commended, similar themes need to be explored in the municipal galleries of Manchester and Glasgow as well as the industrial museums of the West Midlands. And I look forward to the Historic Houses Association putting its weight behind 2007. Equally importantly, the anniversary should be a living one. Magnificently, Hull has long twinned itself with Freetown, Sierra Leone, the promised land for so many freed slaves. Next year will see a wealth of sporting and cultural exchanges between the cities. Beyond such symbolism, 2007 offers a unique opportunity to say something new to a broad audience about our imperial and postcolonial past. For much of its modern history, Britain has stood at the hub of a series of global networks: religious, commercial, political. Much of it has been exploitative and racist. But it hasn't all been one way. Ideas, people, and cultures have influenced the British metropolis as much as the colonies. Ours is a global history of migration and multiculturalism stretching back long before the arrival of the Empire Windrush. So, while the unrivalled horror of the slave trade should never be diminished, John Prescott could use next year's anniversary as much to enlighten 2007 as to commemorate 1807. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1739315,00.html

They were obviously made an offer they could not refuse. I suspect it was a generous payment rather than a threat of some sort of punishment. Ever since the late 1940s the CIA have used money to deal with troublesome left-wingers in the UK (initially they used money from the Marshall Plan to do this). I don’t expect Nigel Turner will be making any more films about the JFK assassination.

Great story. One way I used to teach interpretations was to discuss a recent football match that involved two teams that members of the class supported. All they all saw the same game, their interpretations of the events that took place were very different. You can then explain how ideology influences our perceptions of the past.

This is a very important point. Modern textbooks often provide different interpretations of past events. However, these are usually weighted to make sure that the "official" interpretation is seen as the "right" one. This is often the case with a subject like slavery. As a result, the interpretation is that that suggests that the end of slavery was as a result of a moral crusade led by a small group of white religious leaders such as William Wilberforce. Children are rarely told about the economic reasons for the end of slavery. See this thread where I will develop this idea. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5954

Yesterday the Church of England said sorry for the role it played in the 18th century in benefiting from slave labour in the Caribbean. When parliament voted compensation in 1833 - to former slave owners rather than the slaves themselves - the Archbishop of Canterbury received £8,823 8s 9d, about £500,000 in today's money, for the loss of slave labour on its Codrington plantation in Barbados. The Bishop of Exeter received even more, nearly £13,000. A recent book, Bury the Chains, by the American author Adam Hochschild, clearly influenced the debate. It says the church's missionary organisation, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, branded its slaves on the chest with the word SOCIETY to show who they belonged to. Rowan Williams, the present archbishop of Canterbury, told the synod that the church ought to acknowledge its corporate and ancestral guilt: "The Body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time; it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors, and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the Body of Christ, is prayerful acknowledgment of the failure that is part of us, not just of some distant 'them'. "To speak here of repentance and apology is not words alone; it is part of our witness to the Gospel, to a world that needs to hear that the past must be faced and healed and cannot be ignored ... by doing so we are actually discharging our responsibility to preach good news, not simply to look backwards in awkwardness and embarrassment, but to speak of the freedom we are given to face ourselves, including the unacceptable regions of ... our history." The Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, told the synod: "The profits from the slave trade were part of the bedrock of our country's industrial development. No one who was involved in running the business, financing it or benefiting from its products can say they had clean hands. We know that bishops in the House of Lords with biblical authority voted against the abolition of the slave trade. We know that the church owned sugar plantations on the Codrington estates." The important point that was ignored in the debate was the role played by the Church of England in justifying slavery. The main point argued at the time was that there was no evidence from the scriptures that Jesus Christ ever argued that slavery was wrong. As he lived in a society (the Roman Empire) where slavery was the norm, the fact that he did not criticise it, meant that he must have been in favour of slavery. We should not be too surprised by this point of view. At this time, the Church of England was also arguing against democracy and in favour of repressing those demanding equality. The 19th century is just one long argument against religion. The fact that Church leaders could find passages in the Bible to justify the dominant ideology, exposes the role that religion has been used to reflect the needs of those in power.

Sadly, [very sadly] what Ron Ecker said here is true. We are dealing with those who carry the legacy of the JFK assassination - and a few who were involved before or after the fact - when we 'deal' with the current 'administration' and the insanity and horrors they are generating inside the country and most everwhere they put their fingers around the world. The one more terrorist attack you can bet will happen [or appear to happen] just about election time. The Democrats, however, are NOT the antidote to this corporate fascism, neo-mideavalism [oligarchs/church/military], or the oxymoron of 'radical conservatism'. They are only Bush-light. If the American Demos don't wake up to the monsters they have given their imprimatur to VERY soon, I think that it IS possible for the USA to go the way of military dictatorship or defacto dictatorship and police state - as hard as that might be for most to fathom. Only third and fourth and other parties can possibly be the answer to the rapidly deterioration of democracy, free-speech, information freedom, etc. [what is left of all them, at this point]. When one can be imprisoned without due process - we all can be. When there are some political prisoners, any of us can be. When one can be spied on without a warrent, we all can be [and are already]. When we can invade a country that meant us no harm to replace the dictator we put in prior - and all based on lies anyway - no country is safe. When acts of agent-provacatur-types are commonplace, they can become the norm. When we have not learned the lessons of the JFK Assassination it can happen again and again and again...not just to Presidents, but to anyone, any group, any movement, any country, any opposition to the Oligarchy. I find myself in totally agreement with Ron and Peter. I am of the opinion that the JFK assassination is just part of the long-term conspiracy against democracy. This is the point of this particular thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799 That is why "Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-2006" goes right up to the present. Where I probably disagree with Peter and Ron is over the ultimate outcome of these events. I am the eternal optimist who believes that while freedom of expression still exists, it is still possible to create a truly democratic society. I believe the internet is another important factor in this (before the ruling elite also controlled the mass media). However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events. At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system. The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure. I would be interested in how others see this developing situation.

This scandal has encouraged political commentators to start questioning Blair’s relationship with people like Silvio Berlusconi. Many people have found it strange that a leader of a left of centre political party should develop such a close friendship with two right-wing political leaders such as Berlusconi and Bush. Of course, it makes sense if Blair is indeed a right-wing leader (as I believe he is). It also makes sense if the three men are also involved in a corrupt relationship. It has been recently revealed that David Mills, the husband of the Cabinet Minister, Tessa Jowell, provides advice on how millionaires can avoid paying tax. It is alleged in the Italian courts that Mills accepted a £350,000 bribe from the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. This money was then used to pay off part of a £480,000 mortgage taken out by Mills and Jowell on their home. The route of this money is very interesting. In December, 1999, Mills received a £350,000 cheque from Berlusconi. After ping-ponging through at least seven accounts in the Caribbean, Gibraltar and Switzerland, it ended up in a hedge fund in New York. In November, 2000, Mills and Jowell take the money from the hedge fund to pay off their Kentish Town mortgage. Mills denies the money was from Berlusconi and was in fact a gift from another Italian businessmen, Diego Attanasio. The problem for Mills is that Attanasio denies this and was in fact in prison at the time this gift of money was given (Mills has never explained why Attanasio should have given him £350,000). The other problem for Mills is that he has already told the truth to his accountant, Bob Drennan. In February, 2004, Mills wrote to his accountant and told him that Mr B (Berlusconi) had given him a gift of “$600,000” as a result of evidence he had given in court on behalf of Berlusconi: “I had been able to give my evidence (I told no lies, but I turned some very tricky corners, to put it mildly) had kept Mr. B out of a great deal of trouble that I would have landed him in if I had said all I knew.” Bob Drennan reported Mills to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, as he suspected his client of being involved in illegal activities. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, Drennan would have been breaking the law if he had not done this. This information was eventually passed to Fabio de Pasquale, the chief prosecutor in the Silvio Berlusconi case. He then asked for Mills to be extradited to Italy. Instead of that happening, the Home Office passed this “extremely sensitive information” to Berlusconi. It also has to be remembered that Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi take holidays together in Italy. These take place in Berlusconi’s villas. I assume the Blairs are not charged rent for these holidays. Anyway, I am sure they are working holidays. Mills was behind the Bernie Ecclestone donation. Soon after he was elected as prime minister, Blair announced that sport was being exempted from the ban on tobacco advertising. Everyone was surprised by this broken election promise until it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone had given the Labour Party £1 million a few weeks previously. Mills also lobbied for “super-casinos” and against the smoking ban in pubs. Blair’s strange policy shifts now make much more sense. As Max Hastings pointed out in a recent article: “Why should any British voter feel respect for a political party led by a man who exists in a moral vacumm? Why should we not be bitterly cross with a prime minister whose concept of right and wrong is determined by what he himself did yesterday, and plans to do tomorrow?” Hastings goes on to argue that the Blair scandal is very different from almost all previous political scandals. It has nothing to do with sex. “It is almost paradoxical that Blair retains an unblemished reputation as a family man, but as almost nothing else.”

The main reason I spend so much time on this issue is that I think it is of the utmost importance. I am of the opinion that the JFK assassination is just part of the long-term conspiracy against democracy. That is why the topic goes right up to the present. Where we probably disagree is over the ultimate consequence of these actions. I am the eternal optimist who believes enough freedom of expression exists in the system to create a truly democratic society. I believe the internet is another important factor in this (before the ruling elite also controlled the mass media). However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events. At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system. The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure. I would be interested in how others see this developing situation.

Hopefully such luck will continue on Friday and we might draw the other mediocre premiership team left in the tournament Semi-final draw: Chelsea v Liverpool Charlton Athletic or Middlesbrough v West Ham Games to be played on Saturday 22 April/Sunday 23 April. It was West Ham who got the luck. Does anyone know that if it is a West Ham v Chelsea final, will West Ham be in Europe even if they lose?

Pleased to hear that Graham has left hospital after major surgery. Unfortunately Graham is likely to be in and out of hospital on a regular basis over the coming weeks/months. Hope you make a full recovery. Your contributions are much missed.

Black History Month Promoters' Newsletter Welcome to BHM Promoters newsletter. This is a reminder to start planning for BHM October 2006, and that BHM website is still taking listings for events ALL year round. Plan early for Black History Month events in October 2006. Last year was probably the best ever BHM celebrations with a richness and diversity of events throughout the UK never seen before. And the BHM website more than trebled its annual hits. From April 1st 2005 until 12th March 2006, BHM received well over 7 million hits (More details below). Themes for BHM 2006 BHM website is loathe to prescribe the themes for Black History Month celebrations, but we make suggestions here that you might like to consider. Black Career Advancement in the Sciences & Engineering. Mae Jemison, first female Black astronaut was born October 17, 1956. Paul Robeson: 2006 is the 30th anniversary of his death in 1976. South Africa: 30th Anniversary of the Soweto riots in South Africa which marked the beginning of the end of apartheid (June 16, 1976). 20th Anniversary of Desmond Tutu becoming the first black to lead the Anglican Church in South Africa (September 7, 1986). Linked to but not exclusive to Soweto, Young people who made history Caribbean Independence: 2006 marks the 40th Anniversary of Independence for Guyana, and Barbados, 30th for Trinidad & Tobago, & 25th for Antigua, and Barbuda. Roots by Alex Haley first published in 1976.

Doug Caddy was kind enough to send me a copy of Lyle Sardie's documentary, LBJ: A Closer Look. Although technically very flawed, it includes a lot of useful information. Has anyone else seen these documentary? Is it still available?

For the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Nigel Turner produced three more installments of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy": The Love Affair, The Smoking Guns and The Guilty Men. The third of these documentaries looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from the book by Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Rick Russo, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham. The Guilty Men, probably the best in the series, was immediately banned after pressure from Lady Bird Johnson and Gerald Ford. Does anyone know the latest situation concerning The Guilty Men?

Nigel Turner is the producer of the The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Made for the Central Independent Television company in the UK, it started off a two-part documentary broadcast in October, 1988: The Coup d'Etat and The Forces of Darkness. Three more installments were made two years later: The Cover Up, The Patsy and The Witnesses. The sixth episode, The Truth Shall Set You Free, was added in 1995. These documentaries have been highly controversial. In the documentary broadcast in 1988 Stephen Rivele argued that the assassination of John F. Kennedy had been organized by Antoine Guerini, the Corsican crime boss in Marseilles. According to Rivele, Lucien Sarti fired from behind the wooden fence on the grassy knoll. The first shot was fired from behind and hit Kennedy in the back. The second shot was fired from behind, and hit John Connally. The third shot was fired from in front, and hit Kennedy in the head. The fourth shot was from behind and missed. As well as Sarti, also named Sauveur Pironti and Roger Bocognani as being involved in the killing. However, Pironti and Bocognani both had alibis and Rivele was forced to withdraw the allegation. In the sixth episode, The Truth Shall Set You Free, May 1995, Daniel Marvin claimed to have been solicited by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency to "terminate" William Pitzer. For the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Nigel Turner produced three more installments: The Love Affair, The Smoking Guns and The Guilty Men. The Love Affair was an account by Judyth Vary Baker of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro. In 1963, Judyth met Lee Harvey Oswald and became involved on the clandestine side of the research project. Both had unhappy marriages and were attracted to each other. She and Oswald began working together: they were both hired May 10, 1963, at Reily's Coffee Company, which provided cover jobs for them. Several labs were involved, including a tumor and tissue culture processing mini-lab, at an apartment owned by anti-Castroite Dave Ferrie. Lee Oswald was selected to courier the biological materials to Mexico City, but the project was called off due to Hurricane Flora. Oswald was ordered to Dallas. Oswald kept in touch with Judyth Vary Baker: they planned to escape to Mexico after his major assignment - his voluntary infiltration of an assassination ring against John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed a highly conservative Texas-sponsored cartel was working with the Mafia and rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI in the plot against Kennedy. He suspected that David Atlee Phillips was his handler. After Kennedy was assassinated, Dave Ferrie called Judyth and told her she was being watched. if she talked, she would die. This programme was followed by The Smoking Guns and looked at the research carried out by people such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Douglas Weldon, Jack White and Vincent Palamara. The third programme was called The Guilty Men and looked at the possibility that Lyndon B. Johnson, Malcolm Wallace and Edward A. Clark were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The programme used evidence from the book by Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. It also used other sources such as the testimony of Madeleine Brown and Billie Sol Estes and the research of Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Rick Russo, Glen Sample, and Gregory Burnham. The Guilty Men, probably the best in the series, was immediately banned after pressure from Lady Bird Johnson and Gerald Ford. The same material is covered in Lyle Sardie's documentary, LBJ: A Closer Look (Trans World News Network). I have mixed feelings about The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The series includes some important interviews. However, each one is far too subjective. You only get evidence for the particular theory being pushed in that video. In this sense, they are more like tabloid journalism than historical accounts. Other than The Guilty Men, the series lacks a political dimension. For example, none of them look at the connections between the assassination and JFK's foreign policy.

Although written by a former Tory MP I think this article by Matthew Parris in The Times gets close to explaining Tony Blair (18th March) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2091566,00.html I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role. Books could be written on which of Mr Blair’s assertions were ever wholly sincere, which of his claimed philosophies are genuine, and how far he temporarily persuades himself that each passing passion is real. But deconstructing Mr Blair’s mind is hopeless. Suffice it to say that I used to believe that, at the moment of saying anything, our Prime Minister probably thought that what he said was true — that there was no secret, internal wink. Today I have lost confidence even in that. Small things as much as large have formed my view. What kind of a man would walk out of the Chamber as his former ally, Frank Field, rose to offer a patently heartfelt explanation of his reasons for standing down? Knowing what we do today about Mr Blair, would he still get the benefit of our doubt over the Bernie Ecclestone affair? What kind of a man would employ Alastair Campbell as his mouthpiece to history? What kind of a man would have given journalists on a plane to China the clear and false impression that he had had nothing to do with the outing of Dr David Kelly? What kind of a man makes Silvio Berlusconi his friend and incurs a personal debt of gratitude to that bad, bad man? What kind of a Prime Minister neglects the courtesy and gratitude owed to his man in Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, quitting early after heart trouble? What kind of a man leaves friends as different as the late Roy Jenkins, Paddy Ashdown, and his own Chancellor privately despairing that they can ever rely on the Prime Minister’s word again? And what kind of a man dispatches his “personal envoy to the Middle East”, Lord Levy, to drill vast sums of money from little-known tycoons with hopes of taking life peerages, and hushes it up? We may never discover what so discreet an operator as Lord Levy has said to these people but we know something they wanted from Tony Blair, and we know something Tony Blair wanted from them. Did more need to be said? Another thing we know is that the Prime Minister recognised that if a gift were declared then the chain of events would be judged disgraceful. So the money was hidden: hidden even from his own party treasurer. Now his treasurer has blown the whistle, and his treasurer’s wife, the Solicitor-General, has arranged a separation not from her husband, but from much of her ministerial portfolio. Love, then, is not dead; but if Ms Harman’s Chinese wall is appropriate now, why not when the PM appointed her? And if Mr Blair believes now that the funding of parties needs reform, why not earlier — in his recent manifesto, for instance? You know why. He never meant to put matters right. He has been caught out. The genius Mr Blair showed this week in extricating himself from this latest corner was breathtaking. If a burglar, caught red-handed, should by effrontery and oratory make from the dock so stirring a call for the fundamental reform of the Theft Acts that the whole court were distracted from the charge and persuaded to “move on” . . . then the tour de force would hardly be more impressive. Our PM has the magician’s knack of drawing the eye away from the trick. Should a fraction of his talent for getting himself out of trouble be deployed in some wider national purpose, Britain would probably have conquered the universe by now. He reminds me of those schoolboys whose form masters report that if they devoted to their homework half the dedication they devote to getting out of doing it, they would be the envy of the school. But he already is. Tony Blair has lived before. Dickens has recorded the life in David Copperfield. The character is Copperfield’s one-time school-friend and (until he betrays him) hero: the engaging, handsome and popular James Steerforth. Read the book. It is occasionally reported that some poor woman falls in love with a professional fraud and remains his wife for years without realising what she has married. The British electorate are such a woman. Mr Blair’s misdeeds are persistently overlooked, and his excuses credited. By the time we wake up he may have torn his party and its programme apart. Close colleagues and Labour MPs mostly know already what he is. Forget the bleatings of the hard Left, the Tories and the likes of me: it is Tony Blair’s political allies who should now act. They must accept that he is no longer an asset to the new Labour cause and that, if they do not cut him loose soon, he may drag a whole brave political project down with him. There is not much time to lose.

I already have. It is in the MLK section: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6406