Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy challenges No 10 to reveal ‘the full extent of wrongdoing at the heart of government’ Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has sent a list of 10 questions to David Cameron, which he says remain unanswered about Liam Fox’s use of his best friend Adam Werritty as his personal foreign envoy in defiance of parliamentary rules. In a letter sent on Sunday to No 10, Murphy demands that the prime minister “reveal the full extent of the wrongdoing which took place at the heart of government”. Murphy’s letter, seen by the Guardian, calls on Cameron to detail exactly who funded Werritty’s jetset lifestyle and whether they were seeking political favours from Fox in return. “We still do not know the full facts about the money trail which led to the resignation of the Rt Hon Member for North Somerset, we do not know the true role and motivations of Mr Werritty, and we do not know who exactly in the government met Mr Werritty and whether there was any prior knowledge of the former defence secretary’s activities.” Murphy also demanded a “categorical guarantee” that no other ministers have a similar unorthodox relationship with an unofficial adviser – a question Cameron has repeatedly refused to answer. Murphy’s letter also demands publication of a full list of all ministers, MPs and government officials that Werritty has met since the election. It has emerged that Werritty also met Gerald Howarth, minister for defence exports, and Lord Astor, Lords spokesman on defence, on “social occasions”, which suggests no civil servants were present. He also called on Cameron to publish a “full list” of the people and organisations that funded Pargav, the “slush fund” created to support Werritty’s lifestyle. “In particular will you provide the details of which IRG Ltd the cabinet secretary’s report makes reference to,” Murphy asks. There are more than 30 companies and organisations that use the initial IRG. Murphy said the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report into Werritty’s activities failed to address serious issues that raise further questions that “go to the heart of trust in the government and the country’s political system”. The Labour MP for East Renfrewshire said Cameron’s “dismissal” of direct questions from Labour leader Ed Miliband during prime minister’s questions last week was “completely at odds with the transparency of which you have regularly spoken”. “As you have said in the foreword to the ministerial code, ‘people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.’ It is your responsibility to give these words meaning by publicly providing answers to these questions,” Murphy said. “Throughout this scandal it has been clear that you have tried to avoid public association with it. It is not credible to continue to refuse to answer the questions about the actions of the individual you chose as your first defence secretary at such a crucial time for our country.” The letter was sent as reports emerged that William Hague, the foreign secretary, had told Fox to rein in Werritty after MI6 warned that the self-styled adviser was attempting to interfere in official government policy in Iran. The Guardian understands Werritty has held several meetings with Iranian opposition groups, who were led to believe that the 33-year-old was an official government adviser. The fresh revelations about Werritty’s role in Iran come a week after Hague told the BBC that the suggestion that Fox and Werritty were running a “completely separate [foreign] policy is a fanciful idea”. “One adviser or non-adviser, whatever he may have been to one minister, isn’t able to run a totally different policy from the rest of the government. And I think people can at least be reassured about that,” Hague told the Andrew Marr show last Sunday. Murphy also asked whether Cameron was aware that Howard Leigh, the Conservative party treasurer, introduced Fox to rich Tory donors who went on to fund Werritty. Number 10 has declined to comment. The parliamentary standards watchdog is already investigating whether Fox breached the rules by allowing Werritty to run a right-wing charity from his Portcullis House office. The City of London police are considering launching a fraud investigation into Werritty’s attempts to pass himself off as Fox’s official adviser by handing out Westminster-style business cards describing himself as “an adviser to the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP”. Additional reporting by Saeed Kamali Dehghan Liam Fox Adam Werritty Jim Murphy Labour David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy challenges No 10 to reveal ‘the full extent of wrongdoing at the heart of government’ Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has sent a list of 10 questions to David Cameron, which he says remain unanswered about Liam Fox’s use of his best friend Adam Werritty as his personal foreign envoy in defiance of parliamentary rules. In a letter sent on Sunday to No 10, Murphy demands that the prime minister “reveal the full extent of the wrongdoing which took place at the heart of government”. Murphy’s letter, seen by the Guardian, calls on Cameron to detail exactly who funded Werritty’s jetset lifestyle and whether they were seeking political favours from Fox in return. “We still do not know the full facts about the money trail which led to the resignation of the Rt Hon Member for North Somerset, we do not know the true role and motivations of Mr Werritty, and we do not know who exactly in the government met Mr Werritty and whether there was any prior knowledge of the former defence secretary’s activities.” Murphy also demanded a “categorical guarantee” that no other ministers have a similar unorthodox relationship with an unofficial adviser – a question Cameron has repeatedly refused to answer. Murphy’s letter also demands publication of a full list of all ministers, MPs and government officials that Werritty has met since the election. It has emerged that Werritty also met Gerald Howarth, minister for defence exports, and Lord Astor, Lords spokesman on defence, on “social occasions”, which suggests no civil servants were present. He also called on Cameron to publish a “full list” of the people and organisations that funded Pargav, the “slush fund” created to support Werritty’s lifestyle. “In particular will you provide the details of which IRG Ltd the cabinet secretary’s report makes reference to,” Murphy asks. There are more than 30 companies and organisations that use the initial IRG. Murphy said the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report into Werritty’s activities failed to address serious issues that raise further questions that “go to the heart of trust in the government and the country’s political system”. The Labour MP for East Renfrewshire said Cameron’s “dismissal” of direct questions from Labour leader Ed Miliband during prime minister’s questions last week was “completely at odds with the transparency of which you have regularly spoken”. “As you have said in the foreword to the ministerial code, ‘people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.’ It is your responsibility to give these words meaning by publicly providing answers to these questions,” Murphy said. “Throughout this scandal it has been clear that you have tried to avoid public association with it. It is not credible to continue to refuse to answer the questions about the actions of the individual you chose as your first defence secretary at such a crucial time for our country.” The letter was sent as reports emerged that William Hague, the foreign secretary, had told Fox to rein in Werritty after MI6 warned that the self-styled adviser was attempting to interfere in official government policy in Iran. The Guardian understands Werritty has held several meetings with Iranian opposition groups, who were led to believe that the 33-year-old was an official government adviser. The fresh revelations about Werritty’s role in Iran come a week after Hague told the BBC that the suggestion that Fox and Werritty were running a “completely separate [foreign] policy is a fanciful idea”. “One adviser or non-adviser, whatever he may have been to one minister, isn’t able to run a totally different policy from the rest of the government. And I think people can at least be reassured about that,” Hague told the Andrew Marr show last Sunday. Murphy also asked whether Cameron was aware that Howard Leigh, the Conservative party treasurer, introduced Fox to rich Tory donors who went on to fund Werritty. Number 10 has declined to comment. The parliamentary standards watchdog is already investigating whether Fox breached the rules by allowing Werritty to run a right-wing charity from his Portcullis House office. The City of London police are considering launching a fraud investigation into Werritty’s attempts to pass himself off as Fox’s official adviser by handing out Westminster-style business cards describing himself as “an adviser to the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP”. Additional reporting by Saeed Kamali Dehghan Liam Fox Adam Werritty Jim Murphy Labour David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy challenges No 10 to reveal ‘the full extent of wrongdoing at the heart of government’ Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has sent a list of 10 questions to David Cameron, which he says remain unanswered about Liam Fox’s use of his best friend Adam Werritty as his personal foreign envoy in defiance of parliamentary rules. In a letter sent on Sunday to No 10, Murphy demands that the prime minister “reveal the full extent of the wrongdoing which took place at the heart of government”. Murphy’s letter, seen by the Guardian, calls on Cameron to detail exactly who funded Werritty’s jetset lifestyle and whether they were seeking political favours from Fox in return. “We still do not know the full facts about the money trail which led to the resignation of the Rt Hon Member for North Somerset, we do not know the true role and motivations of Mr Werritty, and we do not know who exactly in the government met Mr Werritty and whether there was any prior knowledge of the former defence secretary’s activities.” Murphy also demanded a “categorical guarantee” that no other ministers have a similar unorthodox relationship with an unofficial adviser – a question Cameron has repeatedly refused to answer. Murphy’s letter also demands publication of a full list of all ministers, MPs and government officials that Werritty has met since the election. It has emerged that Werritty also met Gerald Howarth, minister for defence exports, and Lord Astor, Lords spokesman on defence, on “social occasions”, which suggests no civil servants were present. He also called on Cameron to publish a “full list” of the people and organisations that funded Pargav, the “slush fund” created to support Werritty’s lifestyle. “In particular will you provide the details of which IRG Ltd the cabinet secretary’s report makes reference to,” Murphy asks. There are more than 30 companies and organisations that use the initial IRG. Murphy said the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report into Werritty’s activities failed to address serious issues that raise further questions that “go to the heart of trust in the government and the country’s political system”. The Labour MP for East Renfrewshire said Cameron’s “dismissal” of direct questions from Labour leader Ed Miliband during prime minister’s questions last week was “completely at odds with the transparency of which you have regularly spoken”. “As you have said in the foreword to the ministerial code, ‘people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.’ It is your responsibility to give these words meaning by publicly providing answers to these questions,” Murphy said. “Throughout this scandal it has been clear that you have tried to avoid public association with it. It is not credible to continue to refuse to answer the questions about the actions of the individual you chose as your first defence secretary at such a crucial time for our country.” The letter was sent as reports emerged that William Hague, the foreign secretary, had told Fox to rein in Werritty after MI6 warned that the self-styled adviser was attempting to interfere in official government policy in Iran. The Guardian understands Werritty has held several meetings with Iranian opposition groups, who were led to believe that the 33-year-old was an official government adviser. The fresh revelations about Werritty’s role in Iran come a week after Hague told the BBC that the suggestion that Fox and Werritty were running a “completely separate [foreign] policy is a fanciful idea”. “One adviser or non-adviser, whatever he may have been to one minister, isn’t able to run a totally different policy from the rest of the government. And I think people can at least be reassured about that,” Hague told the Andrew Marr show last Sunday. Murphy also asked whether Cameron was aware that Howard Leigh, the Conservative party treasurer, introduced Fox to rich Tory donors who went on to fund Werritty. Number 10 has declined to comment. The parliamentary standards watchdog is already investigating whether Fox breached the rules by allowing Werritty to run a right-wing charity from his Portcullis House office. The City of London police are considering launching a fraud investigation into Werritty’s attempts to pass himself off as Fox’s official adviser by handing out Westminster-style business cards describing himself as “an adviser to the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP”. Additional reporting by Saeed Kamali Dehghan Liam Fox Adam Werritty Jim Murphy Labour David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Second trial for 20 hospital staff follows UN criticism of convictions for protest-related charges A civilian court on Sunday began the retrial of 20 Bahraini medical staff whose conviction on protest-related charges brought condemnation from international rights groups and UN officials about crackdowns in the Gulf kingdom. Officials in Bahrain ordered a new trial this month after sharp international criticism of the verdicts, which were handed down by a special security court and found the doctors and nurses guilty of backing anti-government protests and attempting to overthrow the ruling monarchy. Their sentences ranged from five to 15 years. The medics were among hundreds arrested after Bahrain’s majority Shia Muslims began protests in February seeking greater rights from the ruling Sunni regime. At least 35 people have been killed in unrest in the island nation, which is home to the US navy’s Fifth Fleet. Prosecutors dropped several lower-level charges in the first civilian court hearing, but the most serious accusations remain. The next session was scheduled for 28 November. One defence lawyer, Jalila al-Sayed, said it remained unclear whether the civilian proceedings would allow new witnesses and evidence, and whether the previous convictions had been formally overturned. The doctors and nurses remained free, but were banned from leaving the country. They worked at the state-run Salmaniya medical centre close to the capital’s Pearl Square, which became the focus of Bahrain’s uprising that was inspired by other revolts across the Arab world and Middle East. The authorities saw the hospital’s mostly Shia staff – some of whom participated in street marches – as protest sympathisers, although the medics claimed they treated all who needed care. Shia Muslims represent about 70% of Bahrain’s population, but claim they face systematic discrimination such as being barred from top government and security positions. Bahrain’s Sunni rulers say they are willing to make reforms, although not as far-reaching as protesters demand, such as ending the monarchy’s ability to select the government and set state policies. The sentences brought sharp criticism from rights groups and statements of concern from the office of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and the UN human rights office. Bahrain Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Human rights United Nations Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Second trial for 20 hospital staff follows UN criticism of convictions for protest-related charges A civilian court on Sunday began the retrial of 20 Bahraini medical staff whose conviction on protest-related charges brought condemnation from international rights groups and UN officials about crackdowns in the Gulf kingdom. Officials in Bahrain ordered a new trial this month after sharp international criticism of the verdicts, which were handed down by a special security court and found the doctors and nurses guilty of backing anti-government protests and attempting to overthrow the ruling monarchy. Their sentences ranged from five to 15 years. The medics were among hundreds arrested after Bahrain’s majority Shia Muslims began protests in February seeking greater rights from the ruling Sunni regime. At least 35 people have been killed in unrest in the island nation, which is home to the US navy’s Fifth Fleet. Prosecutors dropped several lower-level charges in the first civilian court hearing, but the most serious accusations remain. The next session was scheduled for 28 November. One defence lawyer, Jalila al-Sayed, said it remained unclear whether the civilian proceedings would allow new witnesses and evidence, and whether the previous convictions had been formally overturned. The doctors and nurses remained free, but were banned from leaving the country. They worked at the state-run Salmaniya medical centre close to the capital’s Pearl Square, which became the focus of Bahrain’s uprising that was inspired by other revolts across the Arab world and Middle East. The authorities saw the hospital’s mostly Shia staff – some of whom participated in street marches – as protest sympathisers, although the medics claimed they treated all who needed care. Shia Muslims represent about 70% of Bahrain’s population, but claim they face systematic discrimination such as being barred from top government and security positions. Bahrain’s Sunni rulers say they are willing to make reforms, although not as far-reaching as protesters demand, such as ending the monarchy’s ability to select the government and set state policies. The sentences brought sharp criticism from rights groups and statements of concern from the office of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and the UN human rights office. Bahrain Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Human rights United Nations Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Second trial for 20 hospital staff follows UN criticism of convictions for protest-related charges A civilian court on Sunday began the retrial of 20 Bahraini medical staff whose conviction on protest-related charges brought condemnation from international rights groups and UN officials about crackdowns in the Gulf kingdom. Officials in Bahrain ordered a new trial this month after sharp international criticism of the verdicts, which were handed down by a special security court and found the doctors and nurses guilty of backing anti-government protests and attempting to overthrow the ruling monarchy. Their sentences ranged from five to 15 years. The medics were among hundreds arrested after Bahrain’s majority Shia Muslims began protests in February seeking greater rights from the ruling Sunni regime. At least 35 people have been killed in unrest in the island nation, which is home to the US navy’s Fifth Fleet. Prosecutors dropped several lower-level charges in the first civilian court hearing, but the most serious accusations remain. The next session was scheduled for 28 November. One defence lawyer, Jalila al-Sayed, said it remained unclear whether the civilian proceedings would allow new witnesses and evidence, and whether the previous convictions had been formally overturned. The doctors and nurses remained free, but were banned from leaving the country. They worked at the state-run Salmaniya medical centre close to the capital’s Pearl Square, which became the focus of Bahrain’s uprising that was inspired by other revolts across the Arab world and Middle East. The authorities saw the hospital’s mostly Shia staff – some of whom participated in street marches – as protest sympathisers, although the medics claimed they treated all who needed care. Shia Muslims represent about 70% of Bahrain’s population, but claim they face systematic discrimination such as being barred from top government and security positions. Bahrain’s Sunni rulers say they are willing to make reforms, although not as far-reaching as protesters demand, such as ending the monarchy’s ability to select the government and set state policies. The sentences brought sharp criticism from rights groups and statements of concern from the office of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and the UN human rights office. Bahrain Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Human rights United Nations Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Second trial for 20 hospital staff follows UN criticism of convictions for protest-related charges A civilian court on Sunday began the retrial of 20 Bahraini medical staff whose conviction on protest-related charges brought condemnation from international rights groups and UN officials about crackdowns in the Gulf kingdom. Officials in Bahrain ordered a new trial this month after sharp international criticism of the verdicts, which were handed down by a special security court and found the doctors and nurses guilty of backing anti-government protests and attempting to overthrow the ruling monarchy. Their sentences ranged from five to 15 years. The medics were among hundreds arrested after Bahrain’s majority Shia Muslims began protests in February seeking greater rights from the ruling Sunni regime. At least 35 people have been killed in unrest in the island nation, which is home to the US navy’s Fifth Fleet. Prosecutors dropped several lower-level charges in the first civilian court hearing, but the most serious accusations remain. The next session was scheduled for 28 November. One defence lawyer, Jalila al-Sayed, said it remained unclear whether the civilian proceedings would allow new witnesses and evidence, and whether the previous convictions had been formally overturned. The doctors and nurses remained free, but were banned from leaving the country. They worked at the state-run Salmaniya medical centre close to the capital’s Pearl Square, which became the focus of Bahrain’s uprising that was inspired by other revolts across the Arab world and Middle East. The authorities saw the hospital’s mostly Shia staff – some of whom participated in street marches – as protest sympathisers, although the medics claimed they treated all who needed care. Shia Muslims represent about 70% of Bahrain’s population, but claim they face systematic discrimination such as being barred from top government and security positions. Bahrain’s Sunni rulers say they are willing to make reforms, although not as far-reaching as protesters demand, such as ending the monarchy’s ability to select the government and set state policies. The sentences brought sharp criticism from rights groups and statements of concern from the office of UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and the UN human rights office. Bahrain Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Human rights United Nations Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama. In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a disaster in the making.” “If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday. “Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We don’t know who the next leaders will be.” “It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the should-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and it’s created more instability in that region, not less.” “Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered. “The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied. “But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And again, this was leading from behind on the part of the administration.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama. In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a disaster in the making.” “If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday. “Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We don’t know who the next leaders will be.” “It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the should-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and it’s created more instability in that region, not less.” “Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered. “The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied. “But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And again, this was leading from behind on the part of the administration.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama. In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a disaster in the making.” “If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday. “Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We don’t know who the next leaders will be.” “It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the should-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and it’s created more instability in that region, not less.” “Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered. “The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied. “But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And again, this was leading from behind on the part of the administration.”
Continue reading …