Jun 052011

When Ian Puddick, a self-employed London plumber employing 20 people, learned of the long-standing affair between his wife and her boss (we’ll call him Mr X for now), a Director and Board member  of  the worlds largest re-insurance broker (Company IB for now), which had been facilitated by improper use of the Director’s expense account, he was both angry and upset. He made a single contact with the Mr X by telephone informing him that he knew of the affair and generally conversing in a manner to be expected in the circumstances. He was told to mind his own business; that Mr X had nothing to say to him;  and not to call again or else….. Ian then contacted a number of the Directors clients and informed them that the Director was “… a person of no integrity”.

Big mistake! It turned Ian into a company risk, to be managed and mitigated accordingly – and the outfit retained to manage and mitigate Company IB’s risks just happened to be one of the worlds most notorious providers of private spying and covert intelligence/dirty tricks know-how – to those with deep enough pockets (we’ll call it ‘Company K’  for now). In a call from a pay-as-you-go mobile phone, Ian was told by a director of Company K – “you have no idea who you’re fucking with, we have deep, deep pockets and we will fuck you like you have never been fucked before.”

Here is a brief resume of the events that quickly followed:

  1. July 2009. Mr X complains to Sussex police (the county of Mr X’s domicile) that his clients have been contacted by Ian who has slandered him. Sussex police decline to get involved as they believed the issue to be civil not criminal. They also noted that if they did prosecute, Mr X would likely not turn up in court
  2. Unbeknown to Ian until the court discovery of documents process months later, a secret application to the high court for access to Ian’s telephone and banking records is granted to Company K and monitoring of all his telephone traffic, personal, employees and business begins.
  3. 12 August 2009. Ian’s home, his business premises and those of his accountant are raided by a team of armed anti-terrorist police (Google Operation Bohan). All his personal and business computers, phones GPS’s are seized and sent to the high tech specialist crime laboratory for forensic analysis. Ian himself is arrested and volunteers the above information about the extent of his actions, in a short interview with no lawyer present. He is released on police bail.
  4. September 2009. Ian answers bail alone and is dealt with in the manner that the police know they can get away with when seeking to intimidate someone who has never been charged nor even seen the inside of a police station before. Again there is no lawyer present and the interview is not video-taped. Ian is neither cautioned nor charged.
  5. October 2009. First court hearing to consider continued bail conditions pending further police ‘investigations’. Ajourned due to mislaid court papers but police made to look foolish over unsubstantiated and forced withdrawal of suggestions, made in support of onerous bail conditions, that Ian had a history of threatening violence.
  6. November /December 2009. Ian’s business suppliers are contacted anonymously and informed that his business is in financial trouble. His accountants are called and told that Ian is a convicted drugs dealer. Ian continues to receive threatening and mocking anonymous calls.
  7. January/February 2010. The Chairman of Company A authorises an internal investigation into Mr X’s expenses which confirms there has been a misuse of funds.
  8. 22 February 2010. Mr X is informed that an internal company disciplinary process is to begin. Mr X resigns.
  9. 23 March 2010. Mr X meets with City of London police and informs them that he does not wish to proceed with the case against Ian. Ian is able to collect all his computer and other seized equipment the same day. (running a 20 man business with all your business computer records missing for 7 months is no picnic).
  10. 10 April 2010. Ian is so outraged at what he regards as gross abuse of power on the part of Companies IB and K, together with clear police complicity in it, that he produces an explanatory video and blogs about it.
  11. 10 May 2010 Ian’s home and office are again raided – this time by City of London police murder squad officers. He is arrested and charged with a criminal offense under the 1997 Harassment Act. He is released on police bail one of the conditions of which is that he must not contact Mr X nor name him on any website.
  12. The court hearing is set for an indeterminate date in the future (since confirmed as 15 June 2011).
  13. 10 December 2010. Ian’s home is broken into. All the case papers pertinent to his defence (12 ring-binders) are removed and a hidden bug is planted. Nothing else is missing. Local police confirm that it was a professional job. The firm that found the bug for him describe it as 20 year old technology which would require a listener to be no more than about 100 metres away. It was operational when found.
  14. 28 February 2011 Court hearing adjourned to 7 March 2011
  15. 7 March 2011 Court hearing adjourned to 15 June 2011
  16. 23 May 2011. Ian is pulled over by an unmarked police car in Muswell Hill North London and handcuffed whilst police make inquiries. They’re  Metropolitan, NOT  City of London coppers and  indicate  they have information suggesting the van he is driving is stolen. It isn’t of course and, after checking Ian’s information concerning his forthcoming court case etc,  he released with apologies and best wishes for 15 June.

Ian is rapidly wising up to the world of corporate risk management and mitigation.

Apart from his first telephone call and the delivery of a letter to Mr X’s wife informing her of her husband’s affair, Ian has made no contact whatsoever with Mr X – despite what Ian believes to have been a number of  ‘agent-provocateur’ -like attempts to get him to phone Company IB and Company X telephone numbers.

But in 21st century Orwellian Britain, it seems that blog posts setting out provable facts (whilst deliberately and consciously withholding many of the more damaging ones since his beef is now with an outrageous abuse of Corporate-Police power) are sufficient to mobilise £multi-million police operations against you – provided they accord with the interests of deep deep pocketed companies like IB and X of course. It seems like there is a  particular brand of justice that is already bought and paid for….

But maybe we should reserve judgement for a week or two.

Ian’s court hearing is set for Wednesday 15 June 2011. He is charged with harassment under Section 2 of the Harassment Act 1997 in that he “published a website or blog which discredits a person personally or professionally”. The police have confirmed that they are seeking a custodial sentence.

  • All Ian’s videos are available on YouTube here
  • Main WikiSpooks wiki-article here
 Posted by at 4:19 pm
May 132011

Tony CarlucciLand Destroyer Blog

In the shadow of the “Bin Laden” media circus and increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Washington and Islamabad, the corporate-financier funded NGOs that fomented the “Arab Spring” are now cultivating a united Baluchi front ahead of a proposed US-funded Baluchistan insurrection. As early as 2006, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified Pakistan’s Baluchistan province as a potential point of leverage against Islamabad and an opportunity to assert foreign intervention.

In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. In Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.

Pipelines, ports, and petroleum: destabilizing and carving off a “free Baluchistan” would hobble the development of 4 nations – Pakistan, Iran, India, and China. With Pakistan’s plans to use the Baluchi port of Gwadar to give Central Asian countries access to the sea facing a failure, it may disrupt their development as well. The globalists then get more time to implement their “international system” in the face of a weakened Asia.

The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.” This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.

The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.

The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.

Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Harrison has made calls for the carving up of Pakistan for years. In 2009 he insisted that Pakistan should grant Baluchistan autonomy, citing a laundry list of technicalities that justified such a devolution of power. Quite clearly, Mr. Harrison has become more blunt as of late. And while endless papers and covert support for the Baluchi insurgency have been going on for years, more overt calls, echoing with equal, self-serving hollowness as those for Libya’s foreign-funded rebellion, are being made.

During the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsored “Balochistan International Conference 2011” held in Washington D.C., calls were made for “international intervention.” Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France, amongst the myriad of Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Thais, Chinese, Iranians, all working with foreign aid to subvert and overthrow the governments in their homelands. A presentation (shown below) gives us a verbatim rehash of the same antics that led up to a military attack on Libya, and similar rhetoric being used to set the ground work for intervention in Syria.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Change Baluchistan to Libya; change the Baluchi names to Libyan names and you can see the same US-funded propaganda that led to Western military operations in North Africa in the above video.

Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.

There is no question that a concerted effort is being made to build-up a Baluchi front with which to menace Pakistan. With the Chinese already present inside the province and their base at Gwadar completed, and as tensions between Washington and Islamabad escalate, this low intensity rebellion might just get the “foreign support” needed to carve itself off from Pakistan. This would interrupt Pakistan’s use of this resource rich, strategically located province, prevent Iran from sending a pipeline to India, as well as eject the Chinese from the region. For those wondering why America is attempting to escalate tensions in Pakistan over the “Bin Laden” hoax instead of using it as an excuse to leave the region, the Balkanization of Pakistan and the permanent disruption of Pakistan’s, Iran’s, and China’s development is your answer. It isn’t a matter of if, it is now only a matter of how big the insurrection can be grown.

 Posted by at 5:59 pm
May 042011
Gratitude & Special Thanks to Torture & Black Sites

Round Two in Bin Laden Death Publicity by Sibel Edmonds – Boiling Frogs The media spent the first two days of Bin Laden’s Death hailing and saluting the greatness of the Obama presidency. Bit by bit the White House PR script writers fed them Tom Clancy inspired bylines, each new bit more glorified than the previous one. Hollywood must be working on movies as I’m typing this post. Do they have to get any specific rights for this particular manuscript? Or is it considered free for all public info? Anyhow, now we are entering Chapter Two, Set Two, or Stage Two. Time to shine the ……. [Full Post]

 Posted by at 1:20 pm
Apr 242011
Color Revolution Mystery Gunmen

Cui Bono? by Tony Cartalucci Imagine you are an embattled regime fighting against a rising tide of foreign-funded protesters. The entire world is watching, one nation is already under creeping foreign invasion for “waging war against his own people,” your nation has been warned that it is next and has been on a 20 year waiting list for regime change, and your opposition is gathering to bury dead protesters from a recent clash with security forces. What do you do? Stage concealed snipers in multiple buildings and randomly shoot at mourners ensuring a very public, internationally sensationalized bloodbath that will unequivocally escalate both the protests ……. [Full Post]

 Posted by at 7:32 am
Apr 222011

By Stephen Gowans – What’s Left Peace scholars are concerned with the question of how to achieve victory, which is to say peace on the terms of whatever side they support, without using violence. They come in two sizes: moralists and instrumentalists. The moralists abhor violence on moral grounds, while the instrumentalists see both violence and non-violence as tools but believe there are circumstances where non-violence has greater instrumental value, that is, is more likely to bring about victory at lower cost. For example, it’s not always possible to take political power by invading another country. And where it is possible, the expense in blood ……. [Full Post]

 Posted by at 2:18 pm
Apr 202011

By Trowbridge H. Ford When big strategic conspiracies are programmed, like triggering showdowns with the Soviets by assassinating President Kennedy or Sweden’s statsminister Olof Palme, so much has to be connected for them to work as planned that they almost invariably go wrong – what makes critics of conspiracy theories deny that they ever existed.  The killing can go wrong, accidents can happen, agents in the know can decide to become turncoats, intended scapegoats can somehow turn sour, and the intended targets can manage to figure out through its own intelligence services what is afoot, and take appropriate countermeasures.  As a result, when the conspirators ……. [Full Post]

 Posted by at 6:43 am
© 2011 Wikispooks Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Sharing Buttons by Linksku