MET RECRUITS ILLITERATE COPS TO BOOST “DIVERSITY”

London’s Metropolitan Police are recruiting applicants who are “functionally illiterate in English” to meet “diversity targets”, Matt Parr, one of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, has revealed.  

This is in response to trying to meet a demand from the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the lesbian Cressida Dick, to make London’s police force 40% Black and other non-White by 2023. In fact they have not yet reached even 17% ethnic minority, and they are clearly getting desperate.  

The result is, as Mr Parr found, sticking people who cannot read or write in English in Police uniforms, purely on the basis of their race. This is a practice loudly decried as “racism” unless, as in this case, native White Britons are the victims.    

Despite discovering this unfortunate issue in practice, the Inspector of Constabulary was nevertheless all in favour of this anti-White racist policy in principle: “we completely support the idea that London – which will likely be a minority White city in the next decade or so – should not be policed by an overwhelmingly White police force”, he said.  

Or apparently necessarily even an overwhelmingly law-abiding one – he went on to observe, as has long been known and just as long hushed up, that “young Black men tended to have a greater involvement with the criminal justice system in London than any other group. But,” he went on, “that does not mean they should be barred from the Police”.  

Meanwhile native British constables, clearly regarded as surplus to requirements, are being purged from the Metropolitan Police purely for expressing Politically Incorrect opinions, such as remarking in texts sent to colleagues on the total ethnic transformation of large areas of Britain’s capital city. Thus patriotic White policemen are, it seems, being cleared out to make way in the policing of London’s streets for illiterate Black criminals…  

Sir Henry Wilson honoured on centenary of his murder

A great British hero was belatedly honoured this week, a century after his murder, by the unveiling of a plaque at the House of Commons and a ceremony at Liverpool Street railway station.

Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was shot dead by IRA assassins outside his home in Eaton Place, Belgravia on 22nd June 1922. Two hours earlier – in full uniform but armed only with a ceremonial sword – he had unveiled a war memorial at Liverpool Street, and had no police or other bodyguards on his return.

Wilson had served the British Empire in various quarters of the globe. For most of his life he bore severe facial scars incurred when (armed only with a bamboo cane) he tackled axe-wielding bandits in Burma.

And his political courage was equal to his physical courage. At the start of 1914 he was one of the most prominent of the senior officers prepared to defy Asquith’s Liberal government when it was prepared to betray Ulster to Irish ‘Home Rulers’. Wilson and others made it clear that if (or rather when) Ulstermen resisted such betrayal, the British Army would not be prepared to take up arms against patriots in order to deliver a political surrender to traitors.

The ensuing ‘Curragh Incident’ or ‘Mutiny at the Curragh’ prevented such a betrayal (although more recent governments in London have done their best to complete the sell-out).

In 1921 Lloyd George’s postwar coalition government suddenly resumed a policy of surrendering the Union to Irish terrorists. Wilson – though at that stage a soldier rather than a ‘democratic’ politician – was regarded as the possible leader of a ‘real’ Conservative opposition, and in preparation for such a role he became an MP for the Ulster constituency of North Down.

Despite (or perhaps because of) his own distinguished war record, Wilson was no ‘Little Englander’, but a bold visionary: a staunch defender of both the Union and the Empire, but someone with close ties to European leaders including the French and Spanish governments, and an advocate of a merciful and rational peace with the recently defeated Germans.

A year before his murder, Wilson had a private meeting with King Alfonso of Spain where they discussed the possibility of an Anglo-Spanish alliance (to be the basis of a broader European alliance) against the growing power of the USA. Unlike the rabid Germanophobes who infested the Foreign Office, he viewed Germany as a crucial potential ally and bulwark against the aggressive schemes of newly Bolshevised Russia.

In 1922, it would not be unreasonable to view Sir Henry Wilson as a potential British Mussolini (who became Italian Prime Minister four months after Wilson’s assassination) or Miguel Primo de Rivera (who came to power in Spain in September 1923, backed by King Alfonso): someone who in the national and imperial interest was prepared to sweep aside shabby parliamentary manoeuvres and compromises. Or what his enemies would have viewed as a potential ‘dictator’. In fact arguably the only realistic potential ‘dictator’ Britain ever had during the 20th century.

So it’s not surprising that there have been many ‘conspiracy theories’ about Wilson’s death.

Many (then and now) suspected that the notoriously unscrupulous Prime Minister Lloyd George and his cronies were happy to see his assassination.

What we do know is that two IRA assassins were lurking at the street corner as the Field Marshal’s taxi approached his home. Their first shot missed. Then, as one of Wilson’s biographers Basil Collier puts it:
“At that point he made a brave man’s blunder. He could have run into the house and saved his life. He might even have scared the men away by shouting at the top of his voice…But he was still the Henry Wilson who had faced the bandits in Burma with a stick. He did not retreat into the house. He did not shout for help. He drew his sword and faced his enemies. They fired again quickly. Then seeing him fall, they ran away. He tried to speak as he was lifted up, but the words would not come. In a few minutes it was over. A man who understood him wrote his epitaph when he said that even in his death, he showed he was a soldier.”

A new biography of Wilson has just been published, and will soon be reviewed in Heritage and Destiny.

Today we salute the memory of a Great Briton.

‘Holocaust’ memorial appeal judge is wife of leading Jewish politician

Regular H&D readers will know that there has for several years been a plan to build a gigantic ‘Holocaust memorial’ in the heart of Westminster – close to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey – and taking over one of Central London’s few green spaces, Victoria Tower Gardens.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton submitted a detailed report in 2019 to the original Westminster City Council planning enquiry, which went on to reject the planned memorial.

However government ministers appointed a central inspector who override the decision of local planners.

Today that central government decision is being challenged in court, reopening the question of whether this monstrous ‘memorial’ will ever be built.

Readers can assess the arguments for themselves by reading Peter Rushton’s fully documented article here.

And we shall of course report on the progress of today’s appeal.

However one strange fact is worth pointing out immediately. The judge in this High Court Appeal is Mrs Justice Thornton – better known as the wife of former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.

In 2015 her husband publicly supported the initial plan for a London Holocaust Memorial – and now Mrs Miliband (aka Mrs Justice Thornton) is sitting in judgment on the final version of the same project. We have no reason to believe that Mrs Miliband/Thornton is anything other than totally honest and unbiased, but can this be right, when justice must be seen to be done?

Ed Miliband’s grandfather Sam was a committed communist who fled to London as an illegal immigrant from wartime Belgium. He had earlier fled from his Warsaw birthplace after betraying his own country to fight alongside Trotsky’s invading Red Army during 1920. See our report a decade ago.

Jewish Chronicle boasts of “hounding out” NF chairman from London street demo

Tony Martin, chairman of the National Front, was “hounded out” of a public event in a London street on Monday night, according to a report in the Jewish Chronicle.

An ultra-Zionist lobby group called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) was staging a demonstration outside the BBC, accusing the broadcaster of “bias” against Jews.

In his capacity as a photojournalist and video blogger, Tony Martin has frequently attended and filmed public demonstrations. The CAA were holding a public demonstration in the open air just off Oxford Street – one of the busiest streets in the world – and had absolutely no right to dictate who did or did not film them.

Nevertheless it was entirely predictable that the arrogant CAA chief executive Gideon Falter should assume the right to dictate to native Britons, and Falter duly played up to the stereotype, parroting the far-left antifa slogan “racist scum off our streets”.

It’s not clear from the film published by CAA and the Jewish Chronicle whether threats were used by CAA security to remove Mr Martin, but what is clear is that he showed considerable courage in venturing into this Zionist mob alone and unprotected.

H&D readers will know the wailing that would have resulted had the boot been on the other foot: in other words had a Jew or other ‘anti-fascist’ been ‘hounded out’ of a public event on a London street by the NF or any other racial nationalist, or for that matter by any anti-Zionist group.

Congratulations to Tony Martin for getting the enemy to show his true face so blatantly!

Trans row splits Green Party: ultra-woke leader quits

Sian Berry resigned today as co-leader of the Green Party a few days after the resignation of her colleague Jonathan Bartley. Ms Berry is probably the second-best known Green in England (after the party’s sole MP Caroline Lucas) and was her party’s candidate for Mayor of London in 2008, 2016 and 2021, finishing third with 7.8% this year. She has been a member of the Greater London Assembly since 2016.

Her resignation was prompted by a bitter internal row within the Green Party over “trans rights” – specifically whether a man should be allowed to define himself as a woman even if he has not had “gender reassignment” surgery.

Ms Berry (in common with most of the ultra-woke left – though why this should even be a left v right issue is a mystery to H&D) is a fanatical supporter of trans rights: so far as she is concerned, people can define themselves as male, female, or something indeterminate – regardless of biological facts.

Her problem is that the Greens (being very ‘democratic’) elect their party spokesmen, so she is unable to choose her own leadership team.

In her resignation statement, Ms Berry writes of “an inconsistency between the sincere promise to fight for trans rights and inclusion in my work and the message sent by the party’s choice of front bench representatives.

“This inconsistency has left me in a very difficult position. I can no longer claim that the party speaks unequivocally, with one voice, on this issue.

“And my conscience simply cannot agree with the argument that there is anything positive in sending these mixed messages, especially when the inclusive attitudes of our membership and wider society are clear.”

While Ms Berry was careful not to name names, H&D understands that the split centres on Shahrar Ali, a former deputy leader of the party who stood for the leadership last September against Ms Berry and Mr Bartley.

Shahrar Ali (who has a doctorate in philosophy from London University) is now the Green Party’s spokesman on policing, and it appears that due to his taking an opposing line on ‘trans’ Ms Berry found it impossible to tolerate his presence in the leadership team.

Dr Ali issued a statement last July entitled “What is a Woman?” in which he dared to write: “A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes. These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party. We campaign for the rights of women and girls to be treated equally on the basis of the protected characteristic of biological sex, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.”

While he went on to defend the rights of those who had gone through “gender reassignment”, this statement was interpreted by the ultra-woke as “transphobic”, apparently because Dr Ali seemed not to recognise the “rights” of people to make up their own gender regardless of biology.

It’s not the first time that Dr Ali has been in trouble for speaking his mind. In 2018 the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Jewish Chronicle reported a speech he had made nine years earlier, describing it as an “offensive” anti-semitic “rant”. Dr Ali eventually won a ruling in his favour from the press regulator IPSO.

Lib Dems drop mayoral candidate in ‘anti-semitism scandal’

The Liberal Democrats, struggling to hold on to their status as the UK’s third largest political party, have run into a storm over ‘anti-semitism’ as they attempt to select a candidate for next May’s London mayoral election to take on Labour’s Sadiq Khan, arguably the most powerful Muslim politician in the Western world.

London Lib Dem members were set to choose between two potential candidates in a postal ballot this month, but one of those candidates has today been suspended after discovery of a video from more than twenty years ago where she made an ‘anti-semitic’ attack on senior Labour politician Jack Straw.

Straw is an Anglican Christian of partly Jewish ancestry, who served in several prominent roles under Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, most famously as Foreign Secretary during the Iraq war.

At the 1997 general election Geeta Sidhu-Robb was the Conservative candidate against Straw in his Blackburn constituency. Malawi-born Ms Sidhu-Robb tried to stir up Pakistani voters in Blackburn’s Asian ghetto, telling them via megaphone: “Don’t vote for a Jew, Jack Straw is a Jew. If you vote for him, you’re voting for a Jew. Jews are the enemies of Muslims.”

As a committed Europhile, former corporate lawyer Sidhu-Robb later defected from the Tories to the anti-Brexit Lib Dems, and ended up on the shortlist to become London mayoral candidate, until her ‘anti-semitic’ record was discovered this week.

What surprises H&D is that alarm bells hadn’t rung sooner among the Lib Dem leadership. It was reasonably well known during the Straw years that several Blackburn Tories encouraged antisemitic anti-Labour campaigns in Asian areas of Blackburn, and Ms Sidhu-Robb’s remarks were actually broadcast in a Channel 5 documentary more than 20 years ago!

Perhaps the Lib Dems were so pleased to tick three political boxes with Ms Sidhu-Robb – ex-Tory defector, non-White, and female – that they didn’t engage their brains. Moreover some concerned activists, including former mayoral candidate Siobhan Benita, have alleged that Ms Sidhu-Robb was being courted by the party because of her wealthy connections and her role in the anti-Brexit pressure group Open Britain and its new campaign ‘Democracy Unleashed’, formerly known as the ‘People’s Vote’ campaign.

Today Ms Sidhu-Robb issued a grovelling apology in an effort to save her rapidly sinking political career:
“I am deeply ashamed of the ignorant and abusive language I used on one occasion in the 1997 General Election campaign. As shown in the footage, I instantly regretted my appalling behaviour, which I continue to do.
“Those words are entirely inconsistent with my views and values, and though there are no excuses for my actions, there is some context; that is, that I was under a great deal of strain and retaliated to the racial abuse I was receiving in Blackburn ‘like for like’.”

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Top Tory donor and IRA Godfather’s ‘friend’ in London vice scandal

Today’s Sunday Times front page exposes a property tycoon with a personal fortune of more than £400m; a man who boasts of his friendships with the Royal Family as well as late IRA godfather Martin McGuinness; a man who has given almost £300,000 to Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party; yet a man whose flagship London property is packed with prostitutes and has been described as “Sodom and Gomorrah” and the “infamous 10 floors of whores”.

Christopher Moran likes to describe himself as “Dr Christopher Moran” on the basis of an honorary degree from the University of Ulster, though his formal education ended when he left Owen’s Grammar School in Islington with a few ‘O’ levels in 1964.

He is a 70 year old businessman whose family home is Crosby Hall, an historic mansion on Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, that was once the City home of Tudor courtier Sir Thomas More, executed by Henry VIII in 1535, but was moved stone by stone to its present riverside location in 1910. Mr Moran is not short of hubris. As part of his controversial £50m restoration of Crosby Hall he had his own initials ‘CJM’ carved in stone together with his pretentious Latin motto Meritum, Pertinacia, Fortitudo et Fideli (Merit, Determination, Courage & Loyalty).

Moran also has a 48,000 acre estate in the Scottish Highlands.

Just a mile from Moran’s mansion is Chelsea Cloisters, a block of 670 apartments on Sloane Avenue owned by Moran’s company Realreed. In addition to the freehold on the entire block, Moran owns the lease on more than 200 of the apartments. Sunday Times journalists investigating Moran made 40 bookings in recent weeks with prostitutes using 23 apartments in Chelsea Cloisters, 15 of which are rented directly from Moran’s company.

Realreed Limited is entirely controlled by the Moran family: H&D has established that its three directors are Christopher Moran and his twin sons, 30-year-old Jamie and Charles. The twins’ mother (former Miss Thames Television, Helen Taylor) is not involved – she ran off to the South of France with local flower seller Andrew Maple in 1998 and has since been quoted as describing her former husband thus: “He doesn’t say things in jest – ever. When he wants something he will stop at nothing to get it. He wants people to remember what he has achieved and he’s very persuasive – quite ruthless, really.”

One ‘escort agency’ claims to have 100 prostitutes working at Chelsea Cloisters on any single night. Many seem to have been trafficked to London from Romania, and the Sunday Times has handed a dossier of evidence to the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-trafficking unit. Former anti-slavery commissioner Kevin Hyland confirmed to the newspaper that there had been “previous cases of [suspected] trafficking linked to Chelsea Cloisters”. One such scandal was publicised in 2004 by the London Evening Standard.

Gavin Shuker MP, chairman of a recent parliamentary investigation into the sex trade, said that the Sunday Times findings suggested Chelsea Cloisters could be Britain’s “biggest brothel”. Mr Shuker demanded that the Conservative Party, which has benefited from almost £300,000 in donations from Christopher Moran and his company, should hand the money to “charities that assist victims of human trafficking”.

Last year in an article on his own website Christopher Moran referred to his personal “friend and champion of peace, Martin McGuinness”. Via the charity Moran chairs (Co-operation Ireland) he brokered several meetings between infamous IRA godfather McGuinness and the British establishment. According to the Irish broadcaster RTE, Moran “stage managed” the historic handshake between McGuinness and the Queen in 2012, and in November 2016 hosted an event at Crosby Hall again attended by the Queen and (in one of his final public appearances) McGuinness.

RTE also reported Moran’s claim that former Prime Minister Tony Blair has used Crosby Hall as part of his shadowy business career since leaving Downing St, though the tycoon has always had closer relations with the Tories, including masterminding the £30m sale of Conservative Central Office in Smith Square. According to a report in 2006 by the Independent on Sunday, Moran was one of a group of tycoons who secretly lent a total of £5m to the cash-strapped Tories, who had to pay back the money in 2006 to avoid being forced by the Electoral Commission to publish details.

Moran’s many other high-level establishment connections include his position as Vice-President (and former Vice-Chairman) of the Council of Christians and Jews.

H&D is aware of numerous previous controversies that marred but failed to halt Christopher Moran’s meteoric rise to business prominence. He began building his empire in the late 1960s, starting as a clerk, then founding insurance brokers Christopher Moran & Co., obtaining approval to conduct business at Lloyd’s of London in the summer of 1972 when Moran was just 24.

A year later Moran paid more than £1m to acquire a Lloyd’s underwriting agency, and in 1976 he obtained a Stock Exchange listing through an £8m ‘reverse takeover’ of existing company Richardson Smith.

In the late 1970s Moran’s company was one of several big names investigated by City of London Police for alleged breaches of exchange control regulations. These ended without charges, but Moran lost a libel suit against the Daily Telegraph in the summer of 1980.

A few weeks after his failed libel action, Moran’s rapid ascent was stymied on August 1st 1980 when he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to defraud. At a bizarre meeting on October 31st 1980 in a Savoy Hotel function room, the entire board of Moran’s company quit after failing to force his resignation – but in December after a month-long trial an Old Bailey judge instructed a jury to find Moran not guilty.

Nevertheless in September 1982 the Committee of Lloyd’s found him guilty of “acts and defaults discreditable to him in connection with the business of insurance” and he became the first man in the 300-year history of Lloyd’s to be expelled from membership. According to independent arbitrator Andrew Leggatt appointed to assess the case, Moran was a man who “worshipped Mammon”.

Moran never succeeded in winning readmission to Lloyd’s after this life ban, but his fortune continued to expand despite further legal troubles, this time across the Atlantic, in 1992 when he was fined more than £1m by a US Federal court over an insider dealing case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Will Moran’s teflon coating survive the latest charges by the Sunday Times? The newspaper has been careful to assert that there is “no suggestion that Moran has any involvement with the prostitution” apparently rampant throughout his Chelsea property, and similarly H&D is not aware of any such involvement, but there are bound to be questions not only as to whether the Conservative Party should hold on to his donations, but about (for example) the position of Sir Malcolm McKibbin, recently retired head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as a board member of Moran’s charity Co-operation Ireland – and for that matter the charity’s joint patrons, HM The Queen and Irish President Michael Higgins.

Loyal friends of Ulster will no doubt be grateful for the courage of Sunday Times reporters who pursued this investigation, and will surely give their full support by all means necessary if those reporters continue to suffer threats, as reported in today’s newspaper.

 

Corbyn and the uses of ‘anti-fascism’

Since the days of Cable Street in 1936 mainstream British journalists and historians have lionised militant (i.e. violent) ‘anti-fascism’. The true story of Cable Street was that an alliance of Jews and Communists fought police on the streets of East London to disrupt a lawful march by Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. The fighting was not between ‘anti-fascists’ and the BUF, but between the Judeo-Marxist alliance and the London police.

Half a century after Cable Street the increasingly terrorist tactics of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ were largely ignored by the media, who preferred to conjure fables of supposed ‘neo-nazi’ terrorism by largely mythical groups such as ‘Combat 18’. The real C18 (as H&D knows only too well) contained several enthusiastic though misguided patriots, but was run for the benefit of the British secret state.

And on into the 21st century the new ‘Antifa’ street gangs (admittedly immature and far less effective than their 1990s counterparts) are given a free pass by journalists on both sides of the Atlantic, who prefer to focus on a new generation of mythical ‘far right terrorists’.

So H&D readers will have been surprised to see an article yesterday by the Sunday Times‘ star reporter Andrew Gilligan, belatedly drawing attention to the real terrorists of ‘Anti-Fascist Action’ and its core group ‘Red Action’.

None of the information will be news to our readers, since we have reported aspects of this story several times over the years. The best mainstream investigation remains a BBC programme broadcast almost five years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn was a particularly close friend of IRA / Sinn Fein during the 1980s, as was his then-ally Ken Livingstone. As we reported, Livingstone’s ties to the IRA almost led to his assassination by London-based Ulster Loyalists in 1993.

Red Action publications made no secret of the fact that they often met at Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, and Corbyn himself (as Gilligan reports) addressed at least three Red Action meetings between 1985 and 1992, acting as an official of the Red Action dominated group Anti-Fascist Action.

A leader of AFA / Red Action – Patrick Hayes – and another member, Jan Taylor, were later given 30-year jail sentences for IRA terrorism: they had bombed the Harrods store in Central London and planned at least two other abortive bombings in the heart of the capital, targeting British civilians. Their ‘anti-fascist’ colleague Liam Heffernan was given 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of an even more militant Irish terrorist group, the INLA, which for several years had particularly close ties to AFA / Red Action. (In 2013 The Times and other newspapers scurried to catch up with our exposé of INLA and ‘anti-fascist’ connections to a bizarre Marxist cult whose leaders were convicted for keeping women as ‘slaves’.)

A senior police officer told Gilligan that Corbyn’s connections to the group were investigated, and that although insufficient evidence was found for prosecution: “He knew they [Red Action] were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them. We had no evidence that he knew they were actually involved in terrorism themselves.”

All this dates back more than 25 years – and the British state itself is now in alliance with the very same IRA godfathers once linked to Corbyn! So why are veteran police officers and eminent journalists now dusting down files on cases and stories they failed to pursue in the 1990s?

The answer of course is that in Orwellian fashion there are ‘good’ anti-fascist terrorists and ‘bad’ ones. Broadly speaking, Jewish militancy on the streets of London is to be welcomed by the Murdoch press and their tame policemen. Irish republican violence on those same streets (while now mostly ignored as these “ex”-terrorists are fêted by government ministers and even royalty), remains a useful instrument for discrediting the real enemy.

And of course for British politicians and newspaper owners, the ‘real enemy’ means the enemy of their paymasters.

Make no mistake – Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of British nationalists and a dedicated multiracialist. His arrival in Downing Street would be bad news for H&D readers. But it would be even worse news for the State of Israel and its proxies in London. Hence militant ‘anti-fascists’, having been foot-soldiers in the war against the ‘far right’, are now cast aside as collateral damage, just a few more insignificant casualties as the Zionist lobby concentrates its fire on the Labour leader.

Next Page »