Something that’s been bothering me since Tony Lit’s first appearance as the Tory candidate for Ealing Southall is the business of his resignation from his position as Managing Director of Sunrise Radio.

If you’ll recall, a number of questions were asked over at Tory Home about Lit’s sudden appearance on the scene and his credentials as a Tory, let alone as a Tory candidate, in response to which cam this ‘explanation’:

Just to be clear, Tony did become a member of the Party before passing the Parliamentary Assessment Board. He has always voted Conservative but couldn’t join the Party earlier due to his directorship of the radio station, a position which he has duly resigned from.

Now the idea that Lit couldn’t join the Tory Party as an ordinary member while serving as a director of a local radio station is complete and utter nonsense - there is absolutely nothing to that effect in either electoral law, broadcasting law or in OFCOM’s own regulation. In actual fact, as a regulatory body set up by Act of Parliament, OFCOM are a public authority in law and therefore bound by the provisions of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, by article 11, which provides for freedom of association as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Clearly, even with it being a qualified right, there is nothing there that would permit OFCOM to restrict Lit, or anyone else for that matter, from joining a political party while holding a directorship of a local radio station - in fact there’s nothing to prevent Lit from holding down such a directorship while standing as candidate in an election, whether as a member of a political party or as independent. Remember, Lit’s father, Avtar, stood as independent in 2001 in the same constituency while still retaining ownership/control of Sunrise Radio, and even though the station was fined £10,000 for breaching regulations on political broadcasts, having played excepts from a interview with Avtar Lit where he expressed political opinions related to his subsequent, unsuccessful, campaign to become an MP, at no time was Lit’s ownership of the station questioned or deemed unacceptable.

And of course, if one wants a even more striking precedent, one should remember that disgraced former Tory MP, Jonathan Aitken, fought the 1983 general election in the seat of South Thanet while serving as the managing director of TV-AM in 1983 - he got a glass of red win poured over his over his head by Anna Ford, later that year, but that’s another story.

There is nothing in either law or regulations that would force Lit to resign as a director of Sunrise Radio in order to stand for election in Ealing Southall, or any other constituency, and while political broadcasting is heavily regulated prior to and during elections, Lit’s position as MD of Sunrise Radio is entirely immaterial - he’s not a broadcaster or presenter on the station, so there’s no possible conflict there, and as for any possibility of him using his position to make use of the station to support his campaign, well the station is being carefully monitored by his opponents to ensure it stays willing broadcasting/electoral law during the by-election campaign anyway. Sunrise Radio is a family-owned business, so even if Lit has removed himself from a position of direct influence, other members of his family, including his father haven’t, which is why the station is being monitored.

Lits’ apparent resignation as a director of Sunrise Radio has no bearing whatsoever on either its being controlled by the Lit family or on its being monitored carefully by his opponents to ensure it stays within the law.

At best, Lit’s resignation from Sunrise Radio is a bit of meaningless PR, even if you take it entirely at face value.

It’s a facet of this election campaign that, frankly, doesn’t make sense and, as a result, has had my ’something’s not quite right here’ bump itching all week - until Saturday evening that it, when this photograph came to light.

As is now well known, that Tony Lit pictured with Tony Blair at a Labour Party fund-raising event a matter of only four weeks ago, and event it which Sunrise Radio paid £4,800 (as a donation to the Labour Party) for a table at the event and then outbid other tables in an auction to pledge a further £4,000 for a trip to Atlanta to one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising events, which Sunrise hasn’t, yet, paid.

Suddenly the light bulb goes on.

£4,800 plus another £4,000 pounds equals £8,800 - excuse the very basic maths, I have to explain these things slowly and patiently so Praguetwat can keep up - and any donation to a political party over the sum of £5,000 has to be declared to the Electoral Commission and entered on its register of donations.

Suppose, just for a second, that this photo hadn’t come to light over the weekend and that Lit had actually gone on to win the by-election on Thursday. Its an unlikely scenario, I know, but in an infinite universe anything is possible… well, most things anyway - Praguetwat growing up and behaving like an adult is too much for anyone to expect.

Had that happened, and Sunrise had coughed up the other £4,000 the owe the Labour Party, then we would have had the rather embarrassing scenario of a fledgling Tory MP being exposed as the managing director of Sunrise Radio, a Labour Party donor, within his first three months in the House of Commons, with all the attendant adverse publicity that would go with it…

…unless said fledging MP had made a big public show of resigning as Managing Director of Sunrise Radio, right at the outset of his campaign.

Two or three months down the line, as an unremarkable backbench Tory MP and with the media’s attention on other matters by then, Sunrise’s donations might easily have crept through onto the Electoral Commission’s register almost unnoticed, especially as by stalling on payment of the £4,000 for the Atlanta trip until after by-election over, what the register would show is that this donation was made well after Lit has joined the Tory Party and resigned from Sunrise Radio, giving him a measure of plausible deniability that’s lacking once one become aware that both donations relate to same event, which took place only slightly before he became a Tory PPC and a time when he most certainly was the Managing Director of Sunrise Radio.

All that is conjectural of course, but the more you come to think about it, the more this last scenario, which has Lit resigning as MD of Sunrise Radio to put a bit of distance between himself and a couple of potentially embarrassing donations to the Labour Party sounds much more plausible than the suggestion than the story put out by Tory Home, which in the absence of any relevant regulations or laws to compel Lit to such a course of action, looks rather short on verisimilitude.

Of course, if Lit can produce correspondence with OFCOM, or a transcript of a discussion with them, which categorically demonstrates that he was advised by them to stand down as MD of Sunrise Radio on becoming a Tory candidate, then the matter of the veracity of the story put out by Tory Home will be settled conclusively in its favour.

Unless and until that happens, we seem to have two possible ways of accounting for his resignation from Sunrise Radio to  consider, of which that suggested by this weekend’s revelations current seems the more plausible.

Comments are, of course, open here as they always are, should Mr Lit wish to confirm which is the more accurate account of his reasons for resigning from Sunrise Radio…

Seeing that failed-aspirant-Labour-PPC-turned-Tory Gurcharan Singh is intent on asking a few questions, I thought I might ask a question or two of my own.

Gurcharan, I’d like you to think back a couple of months, to 19th May this year, and the events shown in this video…

Next, I’d like to read this account of events that took place in the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, Southall, following this protest.

Re: Incident of Intimidation & Threats at Park Ave Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Southall on 19.5.07

Press/statement by the General Secretary, Executive Committee, Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha

I humbly wish to bring to the notice of the Sangat a disturbing incident that occurred at Park Avenue Gurdwara on the evening of the 19th of May 2007.

As a background to this, one needs to be aware that some so-called ‘Panthic organisations’ had organised a ‘demonstration’ to protest about the serious situation that had occurred in the Punjab and the very unfortunate loss of life that had occurred in relation to the ‘Sacha Sauda’ incident*. This demonstration had been called without the knowledge and any prior discussion with the management committee of the Gurdwara; although the demonstration was going to take place from Havelock Road Gurdwara to Park Avenue Gurdwara.

*This post of Sunny’s will explain some of the background to this…

The management committee had made regular announcements and giving detailed updates of the situation in the Punjab and also appealed to everyone for calm, and await the effort that senior organisations in the Punjab were making; and also advised that we should all wait for the announcement due on the 20th of May from the Akal Takht Sahib before taking further steps.

One of the apparent organisers of the demonstration, a Mr Gurcharan Singh, had come and met a representative of the executive committee on the 18th of May and advised us that the demonstration would be a peaceful one. He informed us that at the end of the demonstration, persons participating in the demonstration would come and congregate around the Nishan Sahib at Park Ave (the area in front of the Gurdwara) and do Kirten followed by Ardas in that area, and then disperse.

[Cllr Singh has asserted that this refers to a Gurcharan Singh other than himself. The electoral roll does show two individuals named Gurcharan Singh registered in the Southall area - see update at end of post]

However, subsequent events, which I will now detail, showed that this was a pre-planned politically motivated attempt at character assassination as well as an attempt to destabilise the Sabha. The Sangat became clearly aware of this as events unfolded in the Diwan Sahib (the main prayer hall).

he demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue Gurdwara (as previously discussed) but did not do any Kirten or Ardas. Instead they burnt an effigy and then proceeded into the main prayer hall. The Police left the scene at this stage.

Some of the persons who had led the march approached myself and the stage secretary Mr Tejinder Singh Samra and demanded that they be allowed to say Ardas at 6:30 p.m., which was in between when the Kirten was due to finish and the Katha (discourse) starting. We discussed this with them, and pointed out that this was most unusual and would cause a disturbance to the regular programme of the Gurdwara, and it was not something that had been agreed the day before. Some of those persons said, because of the situation in the Punjab, the Ardas had to be done; we then agreed that it could be done at the end of the programme at about 7:30 p.m. and requested that the entire congregation should join together in this.

However, they said this was not acceptable and that this (i.e. the Ardas) was going to happen whether we liked it or not! In order to defuse the situation as we could clearly see that these persons were demanding in a threatening and aggressive manner; we agreed to their demands, and so we agreed that we could take a short break in the programme and do the Ardas. Not content with that; they then demanded that one of the persons, a certain Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa, be given five minutes to speak to the congregation so he could make them aware of the events that were going on in India.

We politely reminded them that this was not in order and not something that had been agreed to. One of their lead persons, a Mr Jaswant Singh Dhillon requested that in order to defuse the situation we should allow this speech to go ahead. Also at that time his son, Gurpreet Singh, stated in no uncertain terms that it was going to happen anyway! We then agreed that this person be allowed to speak on the stage but only on the topic of the events going on in the Punjab and after his speech a trustee of the Gurdwara, Mr Surjit Singh Bilga, would also say a few words to the congregation. This was agreed by ALL present.

After the Ardas; I personally went over to Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa* and humbly requested that he speak only on the situation in the Punjab; which he did for a few minutes. However, after that he started making an attack on the president of the Sabha, Mr Himmat Sohi, for attending a RSS meeting; while this was happening, I realised that some persons had started to use the video screen and were going to put on a video, which apparently had also been put out on ‘Youtube’ (about Mr Sohi) when this was happening. Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me in a very emotional terms said to me that Mr Sohi was going to be removed as president of the Gurdwara today and I (Dr Garcha) would be declared as president! I was shocked and saddened at the state of events that were taking place. I made my way over to the corner of the prayer hall where the computer controlling the video screen was located. When I got to the computer six people gathered around me and I stated to them in a calm and collected manner that this is not what we had agreed, and as this was the Guru’s Diwan showing videos like this was not permitted. They just replied, “Who are you to stop us!”

*This post gives some of the background to Manmohan Singh Khalsa and his current organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation.

At the same time an Elderly volunteer at the Gurdwara (who I recognised as Mr Gill) was pulling me backwards with both his arms! I was shocked. I remonstrated with him very politely and respectfully and said that he should let go of me, but he refused. There was no way that I was going to involve myself in a physical tussle with him even though he was being aggressive and pulling me; he said that this video must be shown, as did the other young persons who were surrounding me at this time. One of those was Mr Harjit Singh who is known to me as a member of the Gurdwara. Mr Harjot Singh (the lead IT coordinator of the Gurdwara) was standing to my left and told me that if I requested him to switch the video off he would do so; to this Mr Harjit Singh said he would stop him from doing it. I did not request him to do so, as I felt that this would further inflame the situation and cause further disrespect to the sanctity of the Diwan. Just at this time Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me again, and again in very emotional terms, said that the video will go on; and I again remonstrated with him that we had agreed the program with him, his father and Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

He was still very emotional and talking in an aggressive tone and said that I was the person who had expelled him from the membership (this was done by the Executive Committee in April 2006 after due process), and now he was a member of the Sangat and Waheguru (god) gives him permission and that the discussion and agreement made previously doesn’t count for anything and the video will go on!

While this was happening Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa had taken it upon himself to request another speaker, a Mr Dabinderjit Singh, again breaking the agreement that we had previously made in the Divan, right behind the Palki Sahib (I understand he is from Slough and from an organisation called the Sikh Federation).Once had spoken, Mr Tejinder Singh Samra took the microphone from him and switched it off. As soon as he had done this Scuffles broke out and he was manhandled and pushed to the back and a lot of commotion at occurred as other persons from the Sangat came to protect him from further assault (note that all this happened in the sanctitiy of the Divan and right beside the Palki Sahib where Guru Maharaj were present. At this time, the police were called (it has to be noted that the police that had accompanied the demonstration left soon after the demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue). I then requested that the sound system be disabled, and this was duly done. This clearly upset many of the persons who were bent on causing trouble. We also requested at this time that the usual program be start and a final prayer of the day be done by the Granthi Sahib (he did a marvellous job during all this commotion; and was continually requesting everyone to be respectful and behave as good Sikhs; although he was being intimidated and asked to go from the Palki Sahib by one of the persons of the organising group; but we give him great credit that he did not move and continued to show the utmost of respect to everyone). So as not to continue to further disrespect to Guru Granth Sahib final prayers were said and the program finished. However, many of the demonstrators still stayed in the hall; and it was apparent afterwards, that some persons had also vandalised the sound system by pulling many of the wires. We thank Mr Harjot Singh, who stayed on, till well past midnight to resolve matters.

By this time the police had also arrived, and I spoke to the duty officer Mr Singleton, and appraised him of the situation; I also said that I expected, many of the persons to leave gradually but requested that he leave two of his officers to ensure that this took place.

It was clear that this was pre-planned and coordinated as many of the demonstrators went upstairs to the office to probably interfere with the video recording equipment; because of this officers were called up to the office to avoid a probable breach of the peace, as persons in the office were concerned that these persons had come with ulterior motives. This was in fact, probably the case as many of them quickly moved out when the police came. However, two or three of them took it upon themselves to shout and became very rude to the policemen. This is very unfortunate as the Police have a difficult enough role anyway.

I, on behalf, of the executive committee and trustees, humbly request all persons involved in this and all members of the Sangat that the Gurdwara is a place of worship and not a place for confrontation, ill feeling and un Sikh like behaviour; and we ask everybody to come together and pray for a peaceful resolution to the current situation in Punjab. We also would like to remind everybody that in order to address some of the issues regarding the Gurdwara where persons may have differing opinions; a working group has been formed, and that is the platform where these differing opinions should be discussed and not in the main Diwan Hall.

For further information regarding this please contact Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha on xxx xxxx xxxx

So, Gurcharan, were you one of the organisers of the protest that resulted in this rather unsavoury sounding incident?

And if so, is it really appropriate for a local councillor, one who is supposed to represent the whole community, to be involved (allegedly) in the organisation of sectarian protests about events taking place thousands of miles away?

Oh, and if, as you said in 2005, ‘No rational sikh will raise the demand for Khalistan’, what’s with all the people chanting ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ in the video? Are they just being irrational?

Feel free to use the comments box - unlike your blog, I don’t screen comments first…

RESPONSE FROM CLLR SINGH

The story from Ministry of Truth is nothing but a lie. I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard. The ministry has got wrong end of the stick. I believe they are talking about a Gurcharan Singh and not Councillor Gurcharan Singh. I would ask them to check their facts and apologise to me unreservedly for the offence they have caused to me and my family.I further believe that by putting this story and linking it with me is nothing short of my character assissinqation.
Cllr. Gurcharan Singh

MY RESPONSE

1. The article above is sourced from a press release issued by the Gurdwara Executive Committee and has been published in good faith. The press release itself is reproduced with only minor annotations to clarify the background to the event which took place at the Gurdwara on the date in question and the background to one of the main protagonists in those events, Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

2. The article, as is evident, does not assert categorically that the Gurcharan Singh referred to by the Gurdwara is Cllr Gurcharan, rather it asks Cllr Singh whether he is the Gurcharan Singh mentioned in the press release and, in the event that he confirmed this to be the case, posed a couple of supplementary questions relating to matters of clear interest to both the Sikh community in Southall, and generally to electors in the area.

3. Having appended Cllr Singh’s response to this article, the demands of accuracy are thus satisfied, in so far as he has issued a denial in response to the questions posed.

4. His assertion that the article is ‘nothing but a lie’ and that it amounts to ‘character assassination’ is a nonsense. Given that a Gurcharan Singh was clearly identified by the Gurdwara has having informed that that the protest was to take place and that one of the main protagonists in the altercation within the Gurdwara following the protest, heads an organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation, which was was represented at a meeting in Pakistan attended by Cllr Singh a little less than a month later, it seems perfectly reasonable in light of the content of the Gurdwara’s press release, to enquire as to whether the Gurcharan Singh referred to as an organiser of the protest march was Cllr Singh, or not.

5. I would also not that Cllr Singh states clearly and unequivocally that:

I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard.

However, this article from NRIinternet.com appears to contradict that statement:

Gurcharan Singh became the Mayor London Borough of Ealing

Sep. 16, 2003

Councillor Gurcharan Singh was born in the Punjab in 1948. He moved with his family to Uttar Pardesh, a neighbouring province, in 1954.At secondary school he received a merit scholarship for coming first in his O level exams out of more than 1000 students. He continued his studies at a college and graduated with a BSc in physics, chemistry and mathematics. He also holds a Masters of Science in mathematics. As Gurcharan did not belong to a rich family, he taught high school students to meet his college expenses. While other students travelled by bus, he cycled 13 miles to and from college every day. He also helped his father at his farm. He married Rajinder in 1971, moved to the UK in 1972 and they have three grown up children.

Gurcharan joined the Labour Party in 1976, becoming a councillor in 1982. He is actively involved in Sikh politics and has a strong base in the largest Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Guru Singh Sabha, in Southall.

Singh, who started as a British Rail guard, moved on to become a tax officer. By 1986, he had his own hotel in London. But, Singh says, life kept throwing up challenges his way. ‘‘Today, I have become Mayor with the support of the British, but woh bhi din tha jab mushkilen bahut ayin. Aakhir goron ka desh tha,’’ Singh told The Indian Express over the telephone from London.

When Singh migrated, things were different. Those were the days of racial prejudice. For an Indian to become acceptable, you had to prove yourself, which was not easy, Singh says. Asked why he migrated, he says: ‘‘kyonki koi sifarish nahin thi, Hindustan mein naukri nahin mili.’’

Gurcharan comes from a family with a military background. His father, grandfather, father in-law and grandfather in-law served in the British and Indian armies.

Notwithstanding any question marks over the content of the Gurdwara’s press statement, a matter that the Gurdwara itself seems best placed to clarify, Cllr Singh’s asserts that he has never met the Executive Committee of the largest Gurdwara in Southall (and in Europe, apparently) nor met any of its officers or made any representations to the committee in his 25 years as a councillor of ward with a Sikh population in excess of 4,000 (31.25% of the total population of the ward) that directly adjoins the ward in which the Gurdwara in situated - in fact all of Southall’s six Gurdwaras seem to be in pretty much the same area and within a mile or of each other (and also between 1.3 and 2.3 miles of Cllr Singh’s home, which is in the very ward he represents. One might reasonably assume, from that information alone, that a significant number of his constituents worship at the Sri Guru Singh Gurdwara.

Frankly it is difficult to see quite how Cllr Singh might have avoided meeting the Executive Committee of the Gurdwara and/or its officers, even without the claim that he is active in Sikh politics - an assertion that merit further clarification - and has a strong base at the Gurdwara.

6. So far as accuracy is concerned, and in the absence of further corroboration, Cllr Singh’s comments have been noted, published in full and a note has been inserted into the text of the press release noting his assertion that the individual referred to in the press release is a different Gurcharan Singh.

Look into my eyes and repeat after me…

…

Fox News Lite *cough* 18 Doughty Street is completely independent of the Conservative Party…

…

And so is Policy Exchange…

…

So Nick Boles’ sudden decision to stand down as Policy Exchange’s Director has nothing at all to do with him being caught using one of its email to register a personal website…

…

One that he’s using to support his efforts to become the Mayor of London…

…

He’s just decided to resign to spend more time with his Mayoral campaign website…

…

Even though he hasn’t actually been selected as the Conservative Party candidate, yet…

…

And anyone who says different is a leftie conspiracy-theorist anonymous troll…

…

Got that..?

To save disappointment, if you’ve found your way here via a seach engine and you’re looking for photographs, then sorry you’re going to be bitterly disappointed - try somewhere else.

This is just one of those tales that catches the eye as you’re mooching round the net for no better reason than its a bit odd, quirky and takes you into the dark underbelly of teh interweb.

In certain circles, so it would appear, there is nothing quite so prized as what is called, colloquially, the ‘celebrity oops’ photograph, this being a paparazzi photograph of a famous individual (usually, but not always, female) that catches them in a state of temporary sartorial embarassment of the kind that leaves them with rather more of their body on display than they might ordinarily wish to expose.

Now there are, so I have come to understand, many different kinds of ‘oops’ photographs, ranging from the fairly tame ‘next time to remember to use titty tape’ shots to the ever popular ‘long lens while sunbathing topless/nude shots’ to what I understand to be the creme de la creme of ‘oops’, the ‘upskirt’.

The latter, which appears to be a speciality of some paparazzi photographers, entails the photographer lurking around outside the favoured haunts of female celebrities awaiting the arrival, by car, of a famous ‘face’ in the hope that the near impossibility of making a dignified exit from a car while wearing a short skirt will provide the photographer with their much-in-demand reward, and and image of said celebrity’s skimpies. And on rare but highly sought after occasions, the photographer may even attain the holy grail of ‘oops’ photography, the ‘the silly cow’s only gone ‘commando’ as well’ shot - the most recent entrant to this latter club being Britney Spears, who celebrated her recent seperation from the idiotically named ‘K-Fed’ by going out on the town and flashing her muff to the assembled paparazzi sufficiently often for one brave soul to cry out, ‘for fuck’s sake, Britney, put it away’.

Not unsurprisingly, a whole internet culture has grown up around the ‘oops’ phenomenon.

Specialist websites offer whole collections of ‘oops’ photographs for the enjoyment of connoisseurs of the artform. There is a thriving cottage industry in fake ‘oops’ photographs, in which images of celebrities are combined, with varying degrees of success, with those of ‘glamour models’ and porn stars to achieve the desired effect of an image that appears to show the celebrity in a state of undress (and often more), an industy that has kept the Sunday Sport in front-page headlines on many a slow porn day with fake tales of celebrities being ’shocked’ by an iffy photograph; the ’shock’ being (allegedly) that the photo is a fake.

Most interesting of all, however, is the debates these images spawn, in which afficiandos of the ‘oops’ hotly debate the day’s latest haul of images in order to sift the real from the fake on blogs, in forums and on Usenet newsgroups. The obsessive attention to detail one sees in such debates is simply remarkable. Intricate discussions about lighting, shadows, skin tones, body shape and the relative size of particular parts of the body when compared to verified images of the real thing, whether clothed or undressed are a marvel to behold. Whole debates break out and rage for hours, days even, over whether a particular image actually contains a tantalising flash of nipple, or just a bit of an odd shadow. Some even scour the interweb for the original images that have been used to doctor and otherwise mundane photo into a convincing looking oops and return in triumph, greedliy clutching their prize, like a proud Inuit hunter returning home to his family with a dead seal pup after a hard day at the local ice floe.

The authenticity, or otherwise, of a particular image is debated with a passion, ferocity and even wit found nowhere else on teh interweb - during the recent battle of ‘Is that really Brintey’s muff’ the victor emerged triumphant after silencing his doubters with the now legendary put down:

“Of course it’s fucking kosher. Since when did Photoshop start doing filters for generating muff stubble and caesarian scars?”

Which brings me to the strange tale of Lindsay Lohan’s magically appearing knickers.

You see in the world of the celebrity ‘oops’ the universally accepted purpose of Photoshop is, and one might well guess, as a means of creating fake images which display rather, and sometimes significantly, more the celebrity intended or may even wish to reveal to her adoring public - the exceptions being Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton, who never get to feature in fake ‘oops’ shots these days because everyone’s already seen their cervix so many times over that they’re all bored with it - Yes, its sad to say, but Pammy’s pussy is completely passé.

There was, however, a rather curious incident recently that involved the fragrant (as in peat, woodsmoke and malt) Ms Lohan who, while ‘going commando’ on a boat trip, succeeded in providing a lucky photographer with the much prized muff shot, an image that, as one might guess, very rapidly found its way on teh interweb and into the hands of our fearless ‘oops’ afficianados for the delight and delectation. And as far as anyone could tell, all was well with the world. They had, on their hands, a verified sighting - and anything they might have had on their hands is too gruesome to speculate about here - and they were happy.

Until, that is, a couple of days later, when another version of this same image suddenly appeared; one replete with the more usual modesty preserving undergarments. The oops community were aghast - had they been fooled, they who pride themselves on their nose for the difference between a fake and the real deal? And so the detective work started in earnest, images were assessed, analysed (remember to check the spelling there - don’t want to give the wrong impression), and poured over (and probably pawed over as well, but that’s another story). The debate rages, tempers frayed and many a harsh word was spoken.

And yet they remained perplexed. One of the images had to be a fake, but which one? Both looked plausible and neither showed any obvious signs of tampering. What a to-do?

And then, as miraculously as it all began, the mystery was solved (and without any meddling kids - or kiddie meddling for that matter, this is not that kind of story) after one canny soul did what any good investigator would, he followed the money (shot) and tracked down the photographer who took the original image, receiving the very confirmation he sought. Yes, the photographer did have the original photograph and yes, he could confirm without any shadow of a doubt that Ms Lohan was, indeed, pictured as everyone had first thought, with her muff flapping gently, but most definitely exposed, in the cool summer breeze.

And so passes into internet folklore, the tale of the first and, thus far, only occasion upon which a celebrity image has been doctored to conceal, and not reveal, the embarassment of an actress.

There is but one mystery that still remains. Who was the gentle person who, being so concerned for Ms Lohan’s modesty, sought to throw our hardy oops veterans off the scent? Was it perhaps Ms Lohan’s agent or management? Or was is merely an adoring fan? Or was someone seeking to fool our heroes for altogether more nefarious reasons of their own, as yet unrevealed? (Unlike Ms Lohan).
Perhaps we’ll never know, but we can be sure of one thing, while this was no Watergate, there was, most assuredly, a cover-up.

I’ve seen some excuses in my time but the latest from the ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s dealings with the Saudi’s take the absolute biscuit:

Secret payments of millions of pounds from Britain’s biggest arms company have been found in Swiss accounts linked to Wafic Said, a billionaire arms broker for the Saudi Royal family, according to legal sources.

Mr Said refused last night to speak about the allegations. But the discovery presents the biggest potential breakthrough yet achieved in the Serious Fraud Office’s three year investigation into allegations that illegal commissions may have been paid to Saudi royals by BAE Systems.

You got that? BAE are being investigated for allegedly slipping the Saudi royals, who’re already as rich as Croesus, a few backhanders to sweeten the sale of British-made military hardware to one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

But now, get this bit…

Details from the accounts would help to establish whether money was channelled to members of the Saudi ruling clan, and the amounts involved. The development comes amid threats from the company and its chief executive, Mike Turner, that the SFO’s ongoing inquiry threatens to damage the UK economy. He has claimed that the Saudi royal family may take a £6bn contract from BAE and give it to the French instead.

The company wants the SFO to abandon the investigation before the Saudis pull out of the deal for a new fleet of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons.

You fucking what?

Not ‘we’re entirely innocent’ or ‘there is not basis to these allegations is fact’ but don’t arrest  it’ll fuck with the economy.

I must remember that one next time I’m dealing with someone who gets caught fiddling the dole - please don’t arrest my client, it’ll fuck with the prfoits at Mr Singh’s convenience store down the road.

It gets better as well…

But the SFO appears determined to focus on the accounts and their links to 68-year-old Mr Said. A billionaire in his own right, he is a friend of Peter Mandelson and has been a donor to the Conservative party.

Well there’s a parcel of the rogues if ever there was one. Mandelson and the Tories? Who would have ever thought it possible?

And guess what?

A series of British newspapers were briefed that the latest Saudi contract to buy Eurofighters was in danger and that the SFO should “put up or shut up”.

Noooo. You don’t say! I wonder which newspapers that might be?

Bribe row threat to 50,000 jobs 

FIFTY thousand British jobs could be lost within days because of a bribes row with Saudi Arabia, a defence boss warned last night.

The Saudis are threatening to ditch an £11billion contract to buy British jet fighters — and give the order to France.

The Arabs are furious over an investigation into an alleged £60million slush fund, said to have been set up by BAE Systems to bribe the Saudi royal family.

The probe by the Serious Fraud Office has lasted three years.

BAE boss Mike Turner warned last night that the contract for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets could be lost.

He fears the Saudis will choose French Rafale planes instead.

Mr Turner said: “This has been going on long enough. The risk is thousands of jobs will go to France instead of Britain.

“This is not just a matter of trade. Saudi Arabia is an important ally.

“The Typhoon is better than the Rafale. We don’t bribe people and we never have.”

The slush fund allegations are fiercely denied on both sides.

The contract secures 9,000 jobs at Warton, Lancashire, and 40,000 at supply companies. 

The Sun, 25 November 2006

And, of course…

Lost jobs, a threat to security and a Premier too tainted to end this fraud probe

By PETER OBORNE, Daily Mail, 24 November 2006

When I was a teenager, my parents lived for a time in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The most notable of the relatively few amenities on offer was the Sudan Club, a colonial building with some tennis courts, a swimming pool and a rudimentary bar serving the poisonous local beer.

I would occasionally encounter, either at the bar or the pool, a cheerful Englishman in his mid-30s. He was a salesman for British Aerospace and made monthly visits to the Sudan in an endeavour to sell planes to the government…

Fuck me, it’s no wonder that Private Eye refers to you as Peter O’Bore, just get to the fucking point, will you…

It was firmly believed in Khartoum — I have no means of knowing whether this was genuinely the case — that the Sudanese Minister of Aviation doubled up as the local agent for Boeing, which was bidding for the same contract.

When it was put to the British Aerospace salesman that this might prove an insuperable obstacle, he became indignant. He insisted that the Minister of Aviation was a man of integrity and discernment who would perceive that British planes were vastly superior to the product being peddled by Boeing.

Some 18 months later I chanced to meet the same chap at Inverness Station, where he was eating breakfast. I asked him whether he had sold his planes. He shook his head mournfully. Boeing had won the contract, and he had lost his job.

Right, so this Sudanese guy was as bent as a nine-bob note, now where is this all going?

I have no special knowledge about how the arms trade works, beyond a general impression that it is probably a murky affair.

Like most people, I would prefer that it did not exist at all, and, like most people, I have a hunch that British Aerospace’s standards of conduct would compare pretty favourably to those found among our competitors, be they the French, Americans, Russians or Chinese.

Oh, for fuck’s sake - so the point of all this post-colonial wittering comes down to simple message. Look they’re all as bent as each other, so if we’re bunging the Saudi’s a few million here and there, we’re only doing what everyone else is doing.

After that its all a ‘by the numbers’ exercise…

The Saudis are at last threatening retaliation. As the Daily Mail reveals today, it now looks possible that BAE Systems will lose the massive contract to supply the Saudi airforce with the Typhoon eurofighter, and that France will pick up the business instead.

The move — a direct result of the SFO investigation — would bring about the loss of some 50,000 British manufacturing jobs.

And…

Meanwhile, the rupture with the Saudi government places a giant question mark over whether BAE Systems can survive as an internationally significant defence manufacturer for the medium term.

This strikes at the heart of our national interest. We are in danger of losing highly skilled manufacturing jobs at Rolls Royce in Bristol and at Avionics in Scotland and elsewhere.

And…

Saudi Arabia is are our most important ally in the Middle East. The kingdom provides vital intelligence to the British government in the shadowy fight against al-Qaeda. This intelligence now looks likely to be compromised.

I like that last one, has a nice realpolitik feel to - they might be a bunch of corrupt bastards, but they’re our corrupt bastards.

And then it gets even better…

Tony Blair’s role in all this has been exquisitely characteristic. I am assured that he is extremely sympathetic to the BAE Systems position, and fully grasps what a break with Saudi would mean for his ‘war against terror’.

On a trip to Riyadh last summer, he left his Saudi hosts with the overwhelming impression that there was nothing to worry about and that the SFO investigation would soon be called off.

As so often with Tony Blair, a promise delivered with passionate sincerity in private — and believed at the time by everyone in the room, most of all by the Prime Minister himself — has subsequently turned out to be meaningless.

Whitehall sources say that Tony Blair and his aide Jonathan Powell are so preoccupied by the danger of arrest in the cash for peerages scandal that they have little time to attend to others.

The only person who can bring a halt to the SFO inquiry is the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

Unfortunately the Prime Minister feels he no longer possesses the moral credibility to exert pressure on Goldsmith because of his critical role in making the final decision about prosecution in the cash for honours crisis — as well as the painful allegations that Goldsmith was lent on to give favourable legal advice in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Hang on a second here, just exactly what are we talking about? Blair’s at fault for not putting the kybosh on a criminal investigation into fraud worth a suggested £60 million. This is all your fault Tony, because you’re so preoccupied with keeping you own neck out of a legal noose that you can’t manage to pervert the course of justice for somebody else?

And just when you think it couldn’t get any more stupid…

Many sensible and decent people would take the view that there is no question on the basis of national interest — after all our country’s security and industrial base is under threat here — there is a compelling case for the Attorney General to order the SFO to drop its inquiries.

Really? I think most decent people might think ‘let’s nail the corrupt bastards’, but then I live in the real world not Daily Mail-land.

I’m not sure that’s right. If BAE Systems executives really have engaged in bribery and corruption with Saudi officials, it may well be right to carry on the investigation.

Well that’s real big of you…

However, we should do so in the full knowledge that this country is doing itself massive damage, that our commercial rivals probably all behave worse than us, and that our enemies must be laughing their socks off.

In other words what you really mean is that you think the investigation should be dropped but don’t want to say so outright because that would make you look a completely corrupt tosser.

But nothing that I’ve read about this inquiry suggests that BAE Systems have broken British law. The SFO, despite an incredible three years on the case, has not provided any evidence.

And the SFO ring you up every few weeks to keep you up to date on the latest developments? No evidence provided to a hack does mean no evidence it all, it just measn that wahtever evidence they might have is none of your fucking business - it’s a live investigation, after all, you complete twat.

Even if the accusations being made are true, it seems that any payments being made were made to Saudi citizens on Saudi territory with Saudi money.

It’s extremely hard to see what all this has got to do with the Serious Fraud Office. It may well be that these Saudi practices would not be legal in Britain, but that’s not the point.

There’s a brilliant series of advertisements currently being put out by the HSBC bank which warn us against making assumptions about foreign cultures.

They tell us that other countries apply radically different standards of judgment to that same types of behaviour.

You know, I think that I’m really going to like this next bit…

The Muslim world is generally more comfortable with the practice of paying people who introduce business. That does not mean they are corrupt and open to bribes, simply that they have different values and practices that are as equally valid as our own.

For example, under Islamic sharia law, the practice of paying interest on loans is prohibited. Yet when Arab businessmen come to the UK, they do not refuse to pay interest on loans — they simply accept that is our way of doing business.

Equally, when we wish to do business in their countries, we should accept their local rules.

Failure to do so amounts to the same ‘moral imperialism’ and arrogance which, according to the government minister Margaret Hodge, brought about the calamity of the Iraq War.

So what if the Saudi’s are corrupt. It’s their country and we should make every effort to fit in with their way doing business - when in Rome and all that, what-what.
There is a slight flaw in this line of argument - I don’t suppose that BAE declared this alleged £60 million slush fund to the HM Revenue and Customs, do you?

Remember, it wasn’t bootlegging or murder that brought down Al Capone, but simple tax evasion.

O’Bore’s entire article is astroturfing on the grandest of scale - never mind putting an artificial surface on a football pitch, this bastard’s out to astroturf the fucking Peak District.

The Graun’s coverage raises but two more interesting points:

The MoD, which is negotiating the deal to sell Eurofighters, remained silent.

Hardly a great surprise there. And:

The only person with the power to halt joint SFO-MoD police inquiries is the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. But Britain is party to an OECD agreement, under which national economic interests are not allowed to stand in the way of efforts to stamp out bribery. Britain criminalised overseas corruption in 2002, but has not yet brought a prosecution.

Never mind the OECD, there is an has been in this country since Anglo-Saxon times, the  principle that no one is above the law. That principle was strong enough to take a King to the Executioner’s block and it sure as hell should be strong enough to enable the SFO to complete its investigations unhindered by political pressure, irrespective of what the Saudis, The Sun or the Daily Mail might think.

There’s a couple of, to the say least, interesting rumours/allegations doing the rounds locally in relation to last weeks elections in the Tipton area, which returned BNP councillors in two of the three wards contested.

The one I’m happy to pass-on at the moment, relates to a former Labour Party member who defected to the Tories after failing to make the local panel of candidates a couple of years ago in order to stand - unsuccessfully - for election as a councillor, and who was seen on the night of the election shaking hands with the BNP candidate who won the seat.

(In case you’re wondering, this kind of ’switching horses’ in order to secure a nomination is not so unusual at local level - there are always a few whose personal ambition to become a councillor at all costs will override any notion of political loyalities - one of the more memorable one’s, locally, was a particular individual who jumped to the Tories to secure a nomination after - again - being turned down by the local Labour Party. What made this one particularly interesting was that one of main reasons that Labour declined to put him forward was the discovery that his wife appeared on the register of electors no less than three times, under different names and at different addresses, something which, it appeared, held no particular concerns for the local Tory Party.)

What makes this particular handshake interesting is not only that there is a bit of a history of there being a lack of ‘clear water’ between some of the Tories in Tipton and far-right parties - on at least one occasion I can recall, a candidate who had stood for the Tories in previous years shipped up as a candidate for the far-right ‘Freedom Party’ in a local election - and persistant rumours over the last few years of under-the-table deals between some local Tories and far-right candidates, but also that the person seen shaking the BNP candidate’s hand turns out to be a member of the local Asian community.

There is a second interesting story doing the rounds, in relation to the matter of whether one of the Tipton Three was seen outside a polling station in Tipton on Thursday, and if so, which of the political parties they were canvassing for - for which I’m awaiting further verification for publishing anything.