Khoodeelaar! Contextually updating the diagnosis of the corruption by British MPs, peers and govt ministers [ooops! 'Ex' ministers in Govt] . The context is the role the MPs, peers and political parties played in letting through the big business agenda crossrail scam. They did not examine the agenda as contained in the ‘crossrail bill’ [rubber stamped by zombified parliamentarians in july 2008 under the frantic [and quite literal, physically present in the uk house of commons] supervision of Harriet [‘once a socialist, and a CPGB acquaintance’ ] Harman. They actively opposed the public putting on the table real and detailed and unobstructed evidence of the damaging aspects of the big business agenda behind the crossrail bill. The mps and later their counterparts in the house of uk peers [what a word!] did the same....

1100 Hrs GMT
London
Sunday
28 march 2010


Editor © Muhammad Haque
Khoodeelaar! Contextually updating the diagnosis of the corruption by British MPs, peers and govt ministers [Ooops! 'Ex' ministers in Govt] . The context is the role the MPs, peers and political parties played in letting through the big business agenda crossrail scam. They did not examine the agenda as contained in the ‘crossrail bill’ [rubber stamped by zombified parliamentarians in July 2008 under the frantic [and quite literal, physically present in the UK House of Commons] supervision of Harriet [‘once a socialist, and a CPGB acquaintance’ ] Harman. They actively opposed the public putting on the table real and detailed and unobstructed evidence of the damaging aspects of the big business agenda behind the Crossrail Bill. The MPs and later their counterparts in the house of UK peers [what a word!] served as touts for the Big Biz agenda..

The corruption that the ‘British’ media is talking about is not anything new.
Nor is the fact that the ‘news media’ [we make that distinction] do talk about corruption by MPs, peers and Govt ministers.

However the two don’t go hand in hand in Britain. Not as often as they should, not as prominently as they should. While corruption is an unending phenomenon, media recognition of it is not. In fact the last time that the British media was really seriously interested in corruption by politicians was more than 30 years ago. And then nothing changed even after the display of that ‘intense’ interest. What the media did in 1996-97 around the Al Fayed Brown envelopes [highlighted in media terms by the involvement of Christine Hamilton and her husband] episode was nothing whatever to do with ‘the media being in principle opposed to corruption’ but by a segment of the same media being entangled in partly reporting the ‘scandal’ that later took on disproportionate importance because of that involvement. That entanglement was the London Guardian newspaper’s law court engagement featuring [as their adversary] Jonathan Aitkin who [then] ‘sensationally’ ‘resigned’ moments [historically speaking] before a hyped-up big showdown in court between himself and the Guardian. The Guardian had just ‘revealed’ the crucial evidence linked with the Al Fayed-owned Ritz hotel in Paris which had, the Guardian claimed in its triumphantly displayed reports, served as a location for Jonathan Aitken’s role as the procurer of some shady businesses involving the Saudi ruling clan. 

[To be continued]