Skip to main content

Ken Livingstone: J'accuse

Cicero has received some very interesting responses to "Mr. Livingstone, I presume"

In particular the investigative journalist, Vitali Vitaliev, has pointed out what may be the most egregious display of public corruption since the Poulson scandal of the 1970s. His extensive article on the subject will be published shortly.

Ken Livingstone is using Londoners' money to support a dictator that Human Rights Watch accuses of multiple allegations of murder and torture: Hugo Chavez of "the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". In particular, Livingstone has negotiated a deal to swap Venezuelan oil for surveillance, finger printing and closed circuit television expertise. Several London officials are being seconded to assist the government of Venezuela to install the equipment. Incidentally, the original story that the oil would power London Transport buses can not be true- it is the wrong grade- the oil instead will be sold on the global market- (to whose profit?).

Meanwhile the Venezuela Information Centre- chairman Ken Livingstone- has been set up and is currently being run from City Hall. The purpose of this is "to actively promote Venezuela's image in the UK". No details of any financial arrangements for the Mayor have been published.

Ken Livingstone is in the dock.

The charges:

1) Why is Livingstone supporting a regime with such a vile human rights record by providing technology that will actively assist the Venezuelan secret police?

2) What money is being made on the sale of oil? How does this benefit the impoverished population of Venezuela? When will he declare the total financial value of the transaction?

3) How is Mr. Livingstone being paid for his work in the Venezuela Information Centre?

4) Has the Mayor acted outside his authority by concluding such an agreement with a foreign government?

5) Hugo Chavez has referred to the British Prime Minister and leader of his party, as a "main ally of Hitler".

Does Mr. Livingstone care?

If not, why not?

6) Can Mr. Livingstone guarantee that neither he personally, his party, his office nor any of his associates are financially benefiting in any way from these extensive and largely undeclared financial transactions?

Vitali Vitaliev's accusations are even more extensive, and even more serious.

Mr. Livingstone has a case to answer.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more