Friday, March 10, 2006

This is an insult

My dad, who is a parish priest and honorary Canon, read my draft article on Forgiveness ('The F-word') last night, and it so happened that he was going to to a clergy meeting this morning at Norwich Cathedral where the special guest was the Home Secretary Charles Clarke .

Clarke is my father's MP.

Clarke, in his speech to the assembled clergy, made much of the fact that he had spoken to the PM ''only yesterday'' and the PM was at the time considering the problem of an angry Sedgefield constituent about the closure of a school. Clarke remarked upon this system of top executives still being MPs and responsible to their constituents, how unusual this was compared to most Parliamentary systems. You lucky people, even though I am the Home Secretary, I am still also your M.P and here to help with all your little problems and enquiries. Etc.

He didn't actually say ' you lucky people'', Dad said, but that was the inference. Dad was pleased that he could finally ask his M.P, Charles Clarke, the question he has been keen to ask for some months. Dad waited eagerly to ask his question; he had already written to Clarke in December 2005 with his question. But Clarke had not replied.

Dad was therefore very keen to be part of what was advertised in the meeting notes as ''30 minutes of reflection'' after Clarke spoke. (In these meetings, ''30 minutes of reflection''means ''30 minutes of debate''. But it a clergy meeting, so they all ''reflect'', rather than shout and argue. It's more dignified and godly, see. )

Unusually, according to Dad, on this occasion there was not a debate and questions from the floor, as is usual with these meetings at which Clarke was the special guest today: there were instead only 3 questions which Clarke answered at length, the questions seemed to Dad to be pre-prepared to give Clarke an opportunity to talk about things like prisons and police in a self-congratulatory way.

Dad was not able to ask his question, the last question finished and it was announced that there would be Eucharist in 2 minutes. Dad was very angry that ''the Eucharist was being used as a filibuster.'' And still he had not had a chance to ask the question that was by now burning him up inside. It was time to break bread together; people began to leave the room.

My father tells me he at this point left his seat and strode up to Clarke, because he wanted to ask his question, and he said,

''Congratulations on fixing the meeting so that nobody can ask questions! You will have heard about Rev Julie Nicholson who is so angry she cannot forgive the bombers who killed her daughter on 7th July , well, I have a question, my daughter was feet away from the 7/7 Kings Cross bomb, and she and some other surivors have said they are not angry with the bombers, but with the Government, because there was no public inquiry. Why is there no public inquiry?''

Charles Clarke looked at my father ''in a very nasty way'', and then he said to my father

'' Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult'.

And he stormed past, and Dad was so upset he could not share Eucharist with this man,

and my father left the cathedral in despair.

Dad has cheered up a bit now, but he was almost in tears at being so insulted by Clarke when I spoke to him: he did not think he had insulted Clarke at all.

Why is it an insult when the father of a bomb survivor, a gentle man of God, who has never caused trouble in his life, asks for a public inquiry? Why is his question not answered?

You can write and ask Charles Clarke yourself, but I do not expect he will trouble to reply. If he does, can you leave a comment in my blog? My father , and I , and many other people would very much like to hear his answer.

UPDATE: 8.50pm - Dad has tried again.

''10th March 2006
Dear Mr Clarke,
We met briefly today in Norwich Cathedral. A meeting I shall not easily forget.
I am sorry if you felt a direct question from a father of a July 7th bombing victim to be insulting. If I appeared disrespectful of someone who has to carry the mantle of high office I must crave your forgiveness. Ministers of the crown as well as ministers of religion are there to serve the people with as much humility they can muster.
As you will see from my address you are my member of parliament and I have a right to ask you a question, even one which is of national importance. The time and place may not have been to your convenience but I, like most people in the cathedral today, were expecting that we would be allowed questions from the floor. This has been the custom at every ‘Bishop’s Day’ I have attended. That expectation having been withdrawn for whatever reason caused a degree of frustration among your audience.
I should still like an answer to my question, which I ask on behalf of my daughter, Rachel and many other victims. What is the reason for the Government still refusing to conduct a public inquiry into the July Bombings?
The greatest outrage in peacetime Britain surely deserves to be properly addressed so that we can begin to understand why it is that segments of our British Islamic young people are becoming so radicalised that they can contemplate the mass murder of innocent fellow citizens?
I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. This is not the first time I have written to you on this subject. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement. You were at pains to point out, at the beginning of your address, that even the Prime Minister has to exercise himself with constituent questions so I hope you will be following his example.

Yours sincerely,

Rev. Canon Phillip [Rachel North's dad]''


Blogger Dr. Deb said...

What a terrible thing to have happened.


March 10, 2006 6:12 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't usually make personal remarks about people, but Charles Clarke does look like a thug. I always think of him as "Mr Nasty". You could almost feel sorry for him!

March 10, 2006 6:18 pm  
Blogger Matt M said...

My estimation of Clarke has dropped even lower, which I really didn't think was possible. If that's how he treats the father of someone who survived the London bombings, just imagine what he's like with members of the public in general.

March 10, 2006 7:03 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a typical story of how protected from the little people politicians are. They create so much carnage and suffering and yet they do not have to account for their actions or answer any uncomfortable questions. How much longer do we have to live with these corrupt, murderous, sleazy people ruling over us? How long are people going to sit back and pretend all is fine in the world? How many people will they get away with killing before people start to get angry for god's sake? I despair, I really do.

March 10, 2006 7:17 pm  
Blogger Bumble Bee said...

I'm sorry Rach to hear your Dad treated like this. I read this blog to M and his response was 'and our taxes pay these guys wages and keep them in government!' Unbelieveable isn't it?
When will the government start to acknowledge us and answer our questions? When will they start to realise the decisions they make and the way they act affects us?

March 10, 2006 7:46 pm  
Blogger steve said...

Right that's it! Tomorrow I'm writing to my MP, I'm embarassed by this gov't they are an utter disgrace, enough is enough! I will write and write until I get a reply. Will let you know if I ever get one.


March 11, 2006 12:22 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They really are beneath contempt. Charles Clarke makes Margaret Hodge look like an amateur.

March 11, 2006 12:48 am  
Blogger Davide Simonetti said...

It seems asking questions of our leaders is becoming a thing of the past. Even in parliament this right is being restricted. What really shocks me is how rude Charles Clarke was to your father. I am glad that that your dad is persistant and has tried again. MPs are supposed to reply to their constituent's questions within two weeks. I remember reading that either on They Work For You or Write To Them. My MP usually manages to and he is also a minister. I think there is a way of reporting such awful behavior. What is becoming abundantly clear is that this govenment does not like scrutiny or accountability.

March 11, 2006 1:08 am  
Blogger Davide Simonetti said...

I have sent an email with a link to this post to Channel 4 News in the hope that they might report on it. You never know.

March 11, 2006 3:44 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This man is beneath contempt, but then I guess we already knew that. Regrettably I don't think that your dad will get an apology, which he most certainly deserves after such disgraceful behaviour, and the only response that he will get, if he gets one at all, will be the same old line that Clarke has always trotted out about any public enquiry. Like you and your dad I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a public enquiry into 7/7, but am not holding my breath that they will give way. Both Blairs and Clarke know how vulnerable they would be if the truth really were to surface and on this one they would be unlikely to be able to get away with the type of bullshit whitewash that were Butler and Hutton.

March 11, 2006 8:38 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Thank you very much for all the supportive comments and links everyone, I have passed them all onto Dad who is much encouraged and cheered by your support.

He is hopeful that this may contribute to him recieving a reply from Clarke, his M.P.

I shall let you know if he does...

March 11, 2006 10:23 am  
Blogger Fiona said...

A wave of anger went over me when reading that. How dare Clarke treat your Dad like that?

It is disgusting.

March 11, 2006 10:26 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Simonetti: I wrote to my MP (Edward Davey, Lib Dem) via Write to Them about a subway near my house which is routinely abused by moped riders and more than two weeks later, I've had no reply. The council have been more forthcoming, mind you, but it's interesting to see that Davey has no interest in a subway which is being turned into a death trap.

March 11, 2006 11:41 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you've told your friends at the Sunday Times about this. It's newsworthy, and deserves a wider audience.

March 11, 2006 11:47 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comes as no surprise whatsoever. Clarke is an obnoxious boor and a bully - as is his master.

March 11, 2006 11:50 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, Clarke has always been a bruiser and a bully. Your dad did the right thing by not sharing the Eucharist with him, I suspect in all good conscience (or reality) he could not have shared the peace with him beforehand.

March 11, 2006 12:14 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel, I'm sorry but not surprised at how your father was treated. Charles Clarke is a bombastic fool who, like many of his Cabinet colleagues, has been promoted well beyond competence. What does surprise me is that so many ministers in the most openly devout Government in my lifetime appear to lack any of the qualities traditionally associated with the Christian faith.

March 11, 2006 2:24 pm  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

*rubs hands in glee*

Oh, Clarke is sooooo going to get it. 1000 words in and its still a preamble...

As you know, I don't necessarily support an enquiry, seeing only a lawyers bunfest, but I loathe Clarke...


March 11, 2006 5:36 pm  
Blogger Zhoen said...

"Representative" govenment is crumbling all over the world. Too much money in too few hands means the powerful have become untouchable. Over here, we got the moron Bush Jr.

I'm sorry.

March 11, 2006 8:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a despicable way for that bullying vermin to treat your father and I sincerely hope this story gets some press. Good luck to you (and him!).

March 11, 2006 11:19 pm  
Blogger Davide Simonetti said...

I have now sent your article the the newsdesks of The Guardian and The Independent. I really want this story to get some publicity outside the blogosphere. I'm not overly optimistic but its worth a try.

March 12, 2006 2:52 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to offer you my deeply felt sympathy.

I no longer have words left to convey my loathing for Clarke and the rest of them, or my horror at what they are doing to the people of this country. Please make yourself aware (if you haven't already) of the ID card issue.

Of course, Clarke's nature should already have been apparent before the last elect. I trust everyone here who dislike him did not vote for his party.

March 12, 2006 4:50 am  
Blogger Ham said...

Well, it may not be clever, but go to google,type in "Sweaty Baboon" and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

March 12, 2006 9:22 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a Government that buries every scandal and bad piece of news with a 'public enquiry'

I am dumbfounded at this man but this is typical of the arrogance of Labour as a whole. We only matter at election time when theres a vote in it!

I can't even begin to imagine how those who lost loved ones, where injured and traumatised by the bombings feel.

There really does need to be big questioned asked why UK citizens, muslim youth, those very people New Labour said they would help. Fell so isolated from the political system that they have to go out and murder and maim innocent people of all nationalities, races and religions.

March 12, 2006 10:01 am  
Blogger Ally said...

I am so sorry Rachel. Clarke is a deeply unpleasant man. Our government has somehow forgotten that they are servants of the people; not our rulers.

March 12, 2006 10:42 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This government has read Burnham and liked the future he projected.

They are managers in the extreme "Brazil" sense. In this world the governed are not to be consulted or heard - they are assumed not to have worthwhile knowledge....

Much like Edward Heath, they find elections an annoying interference in their managing of the country.

Once you understand this, you understand what happened here. Ironic, isn't it - Thatcher would have stopped to listen....

The Anon

March 12, 2006 11:10 am  
Blogger fjl said...

I have never tuned into Clarke's perspective on the bombings, but it strikes me as awfully foolish to glower at the father of a bomb victim who has an audience of approx five thousand a day, and poke him in the eye. Some people personalise their negative relationship with the press and displace their frustration onto others. Charles Clarke has behaved arrogantly and carelessly.
At least you're not dealing with a complete internet loon like the one pestering me, who's now become such a nutter I'm having to smoke him out :-)

March 12, 2006 6:02 pm  
Blogger BondBloke said...

I think that like most of this New Labour bunch Clarke is morally bankrupt, however there is no excuse for this sort of treatment, no excuse at all. Truly yoiur father should receive an apology from this thug, but I suspect none will be forthcoming...

March 12, 2006 6:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear, dear me

I know the man is quite robust, but I genuinely thought he had a heart.

That is absolutely appalling.

Nothing else one can say. Appalling.


March 12, 2006 8:33 pm  
Blogger R said...

"Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult" - Charles Clarke, March 10th 2006.

What a fantastically telling illustration of how Bliar's Home Secretary responds to challenging questions from his constituents.

"Home Secretary snubs father of London Bombings survivor" - has a nice ring to it as a headline, doncha think? Maybe there's a news story in this?

March 12, 2006 9:01 pm  
Blogger R said...


Norwich South
2005 General Election result:


Lab 15,904 37.70
LD 12,251 29.04
Tory 9,567 22.68
Oths 4,468 10.59

Total 42,190 Majority 3,653 (8.66 %)

Present holder: Lab

Charles Clarke loses his seat in 2008/9 on a 4.5% swing to the Liberal Democrats. I like those odds... Maybe your Dad should stand against him?!

March 12, 2006 9:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your father was rude and insulting, if this is the way he treats people he should resign his living. Charles Clarke was right to be insulted. There is absolutely NO need for wasting time and money on a public enquiry, and in any case one could not be held whilst investigations are continuing. This blog is nothing but an anti government rant.

March 12, 2006 11:14 pm  
Blogger Andy said...

I used to live on the south side of Norwich. Wish I still did - I'd enjoy voting against him.

Anyone forwarded this link to the Eastern Daily Press and the Evening News yet? That'll hit him harder than the nationals will...

March 13, 2006 1:11 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how saying "congratulations on fixing the meeting" can come across in any sort of friendly and open way. To compound this with suggesting that the Government are more culpable than the bombers is on balance, not the right way to phrase a genuine question.

Where is your evidence that Charles Clarke "fixed" the meeting? Are you blaming him for the actions of those that actually fixed the meeting and agreed (if indeed there was any agreement) on the terms of the meeting?

I believe that there should be an enquiry, however I don't really think this sort of, with all due respect to your father, intemperate approach (whether intended, actual or perceived) really aids that cause one bit.

March 13, 2006 9:16 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

The meeting according to Dad differed from every other Bishop's meeting that he has ever attended in that there was no open debate from the floor.

Dad had, remember, already written to Clarke in December, and had not recieved a reply to his question. he then waited to ask his question in what was described in the meeting notes as a 'period of refection' , there was no indication that this would NOT be a normal period of reflection ie no open debate, no questions from the floor. To add to his anger, the Eucharist then appeared to Dad to be being used as ' a filibuster'.

Clarke and my father were on their own when Dad apprached him, no media, no minders. Perhaps that is why he responded so insultingly.

If I were Clarke, I would have said 'Woah, hang on, what's this? Who are you?' and taken the time to find out that I was talking to a) a constituent b) a respected clergyman and member of the audience with a genuine question c) the father of a July bombing survivor.

I concede that my father's exasperation may have been apparent in his direct question to his MP at the end of a meeting where direct questions were, unusually, not allowed. But if I am speaking at a meeting, especially if I am taking questions, I make it my business to know what format the meeting will take and how questions will be aasked and answered. That the format of the meeting differed this time doe snot mean that Clarke personally fixed it, no. perhaps one of his staff did?

My father did not say the Government was more culpable than the bombers, he said some survivors were more angry with the Govt. than the bombers because there has been no public enquiry
( see survivor testimony re. Govt. narative -'we don't need to understand what happened, we need to understand why it happened, only then can we help to prevent it happening again'.) The bombers are dead, there is not much point being angry with them. But the refusal to consider why it happened and how it was responded is worse than disappointing, it is insulting. And saying' get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult' is a poor way to behave, whoever you are.

March 13, 2006 12:24 pm  
Blogger BondBloke said...

Behind you all the way Rachel, this thugs actions were reprehensible and there is no way in which he can be defended except by like minded, morally bankrupt people...

March 13, 2006 1:13 pm  
Blogger The Moai said...

Outrageous. Am linking to this post forthwith. I'd ask my MP to demand an answer but she has already harangued him before (Glenda Jackson.) Using the Eucharist in such a way is the worst of it.

March 13, 2006 2:12 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm old enough to remember another Home Secretary (Henry Brooke) who represented Hampstead. He lost an election in what was then a safe(ish) Conservative seat because his constituents were completely disgusted with him. Let's hope the Norwich (?) voters deliver the same verdict on this creep. BTW why doesn't he either grow a beard or shave?

March 13, 2006 4:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chicken Yoghurt is worried for Charles Clarke's health... He thinks his behaviour might be symptomatic of something!

March 13, 2006 4:55 pm  
Blogger R said...

"Les": Charles Clarke is a nasty little man who's trying to destroy our democracy and he will be held accountable for it. He pretends to be representing the victims of terrorism when in fact he is abusing their suffering to further his own power and create an environment where sleaze and corruption can flourish unchecked. If you want to take this man's side against the ordinary people he is abusing, just think about what that makes you...

March 13, 2006 9:35 pm  
Blogger Colcam said...

I'm disgusted reading this.

Clarke has shown himself up for what he is - a self-important boor and a bully.

Kind regards to you and Dad, and I hope he really has cheered up.

March 13, 2006 11:25 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason the government don't want a public enquiry about the 7/7 bombings is it would raise a lot of awkward questions about why people who live here feel so alienated by our government's foreign policy that they feel the need to don rucksacks full of explosive and blow themselves and others to kingdom come.

The government has already pre-decided that its foreign policy in following America into whatever morass GWB decides on next, is a) correct and b) the only way to go about things, they don't want people asking awkward questions which might bring the blame home to their own actions.

Yes, the fanatics who carried out the bombins were to blame but they wouldn't have had the impetus if we hadn't been sodding up Iraq big time and now, it seems, looking to do the same to Iran.

I think your Dad was right to raise the issue, and I can understand him being angry with Clarke. In fairness to Charles Clarke (and those are words you won't here me say very often) he may not have been personally responsible for fixing the format: New Labour has surrounded itself with a thick layer of acolytes whose job it is to stop reality filtering through... but I would have thought a politician as supposedly astute as Clarke would have sied up the situation and made a more appropriate response. Fat beardy git looks like Fungus the bogeyman anyway.

March 14, 2006 5:59 pm  
Blogger Dave Cross said...


I wrote to Charles Clarke on Tuesday and I've just got a response. I've written about it on my blog at

March 16, 2006 10:27 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your Dad was angry and his opening comment was contentious, but politicians are supposed to be able to deal with angry members of the public in a tactful way. However, what would you expect from one of this government's yobs? Perhaps he should be thankful that it wasn't John Prescott.
As for a public enquiry, you know it would be a whitewash; the blame would go to the community 'for not doing enough for disadvantaged minorities'. And if you blame the Iraq war only, think back to those hate banners and cartoons -nothing to do with Iraq there!
(Oh, and look up the Legislative and Regulatory Bill which they want to quietly shove through if you value democracy.)

March 16, 2006 10:59 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is deeply shameful that a Government misister can behave in this way. However there will not be any inquiry for quite some time yet - although there may be one in the future. The reason for this is that there is an ongoing coverup be carried out at the highest levels regarding the horrific 7/7 bombing. To this day we don't know who the real perpetrators are - except for a few grainy and possibly forged CCTV photographs.

March 16, 2006 11:34 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

I have just read Alan Clifford's site and I must say I am not in agreement with it at all, especially his understanding of Islam, which is inaccurate and shows a very limited understanding of Islam. I'm afraid with his run in, I am with Mr Clarke!

March 20, 2006 7:37 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not for nothing that they call Charles Clarke
'Satan's Fruitbat', Rachel.


March 21, 2006 1:26 am  
Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Whilst your father's opening comment may have been abrupt, you would have thought that with all his years in politics Clarke would have been able to handle someone who appeared frustrated and irate in a much better way than "Get away from me."

The failure to hold a public enquiry is sadly typical of this government. They are focussed on meaningless ideas that do next to nothing to fight terrorism, such as ID cards, and ignore the lessons about preventing/responding to terrorist attacks that an enquiry might be able to offer.

March 23, 2006 1:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that one person's report of some else's encounter (hearsay or hearsay) is then used as evidence of general government malfeasance.

I long for the day that politicians are judged by their policies not for their personalities. This is clearly not going to happen for many years. As a result we get awful politics and gutter-level political debate (see above, with as much respect as I can muster).

March 27, 2006 1:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On what grounds should there be a public enquiry?

In all the mud-slinging the point (if there was one) of Rachel's father's question has become lost in this self-righteous chorus of "isn't he a nasty man?".

March 27, 2006 1:34 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So not holding a public enquiry "ignore[s] the lessons about preventing/responding to terrorist attacks that an enquiry might be able to offer."

No, what a public enquiry would do would be to make transparent the enquiry and open it out to a wider range of participants.

I would suggest that public enquiries only serve as a rather ineffective salve for victims (see the Saville Enquiry into Bloody Sunday) but are used by opposition-minded media (see The Independent) as an emotionally-laden bludgeon with which to attack the government.

As the enquiry would be delving into this country's counter-terrorism measures, it would take some persuading for me to believe that this would be a process best conducted in public.

Anyway, as you were ... Charles Clarke is evil/fat/terrible etc etc

March 27, 2006 1:41 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I covered my reasons in the Sunday Times article: basically - learn lessons from what happened. I can't set the terms of the public enqiry, only ministers can do that now.

Why 7/7 happened, ( I doubt they'll cover Iraq but why did 4 British men join an ideaology that advocates mass murder, and how many young Brits feel the same?)

Exactly what happened ( because we still have not got an official versiona nd there are disrecrepancies which only feed the conspiracy theories)

What we can learn from the day ( esp. here the survivor testimony about lack of ambulances, equipment, communication, aftercare)

what we can do to save lives, spare suffering and prevent further bomb attacks.

That'dd do me. But everyone has their own reasons and questions - the public, after allwere attacked, run the risks, and i think peopel deserve to be told what the risks are and what will happen next time if a bomb goes off to minimise suffering.

Finally, if defence of the reallm stuff comes up, I'd have no prob with classifying and closing that part of the enquiry. And if current trials such as Crevice will be compromised by a 7/7 enquiry and we needs must wait until they have been finished, so be it. Just flipping well tell us that and I will understand. It is the utter lack of informationa dn catastrophic failures of communication that is doing my head in.

March 27, 2006 3:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We now know where Charles Clarke is comming from. He has admitted he does not believe in God but many people must have suspected already. Why was he televised at a midnight mass service reading a lesson from the bible and singing Christmas carols? 2005.

April 02, 2006 12:07 am  
Blogger kobwebby said...

Cynically reading between the lines of Mr Clarks reply to Dave Blog.

Quote: "the issues involved have nothing whatsoever to do with personal embarrassment or party-political matters".

Considering the environment of contempt, duplicity and lies within which our semi-elected officials and leaders operate nowadays; one can only interpret Mr Clarks statement as being; everything to do with personal embarrassment and party-political matters!

Certainly, his reply simply reiterates the arrogance and contempt, practised by those that pretend to serve... us.

It must have been very upsetting for you both....

March 06, 2007 2:37 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am deeply distressed that the government is still refusing to have any sort of inquiry about the 7/7 bombing. The central issue in my opininion is that M15 did not maintain surveillance on the two 7/7suspects even when they had been in contact with the "crevice" suspects This can only be due to lack of resource in M15 or shortage of suitably trained surveillance personnel. Like many other citizens I would have been prepared to pay very substantial amounts of extra tax to enable M15 to carry out surveillance on these bombers. The fact is that we were not even told that M15 had a problem. We must now widen the campaign to get an inquiry and see that M15 is suitably "beefed -up" to enable it to do it's job in future. As a start we should all petition our own MP's. Parliament has been sadly ignored by this government and this attitude must now change.

May 10, 2007 11:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home