Skip to main content

Pauline Neville Jones- An Apology

During one of the darkest episodes in British History in the early 1990s the then British Government sat on its hands while tens of thousands of civilians were slaughtered by Serbian death squads in Bosnia.

Douglas Hurd, advised by his then Security Chief, Pauline Neville Jones, campaigned tirelessly to ensure that the legal government of Bosnia Herzegovina could not defend itself against Serbian murderers. He called this disgraceful policy "ensuring a level playing field".

Tens of thousands of women were raped, tens of thousands were killed, and the population of such cities as Sarajevo and Dubrovnik were besieged by the Serbs in a medieval display of barbarity. 90% of the casualties were on one side- an interesting version of a level playing field

Very shortly after they left office, "Dame Pauline" and "Lord Hurd" as they became, joined Nat West Markets as senior advisers and directors.

Three months after that Nat West Markets gained privatisation mandates from the Milosovic government in Belgrade to sell Telecom Serbije. The mandates in addition to making Nat West, Lord Hurd and Dame Pauline millions of Pounds also allowed Milosovic to raise tens of millions and continue the policy of violence and oppression that ultimately led to British Forces going into action to defend the civilian population of Kosova against renewed Serbian atrocities.

Some would consider therefore that Dame Pauline has a rather questionable reputation.

The Conservatives are more forgiving- they just made her a peer of the realm in the latest reshuffle.

Silly me- I thought that integrity and honesty were values that had universal respect. In fact dishonesty, greed and double dealing seem more highly prized by Mr. Cameron's "Cavaliers".

I am sure that the war victims of Bosnia and Croatia will welcome this appointment with great delight.

Comments

Anonymous said…
thank you nice sharing

cep program

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...