My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Hitchens is not Great: How Atheism ruins Everything | Main | Minnesota Supreme Court spanks anti-smacking lobby »


Andrew McIntosh

Does this pave the way for the money to be cashed in?


Good on you. And I mean that. On the other hand, that Peter Davies smear never amounted to anything publicly. At the time I called it a bad move; a move that as an editor I would not have allowed you to make. I've been waiting to be proved wrong also. Will Investigate be right? Or is that just collateral damage Ian? Who was that man?


Yeah Belt. I elaborate on the story behind the Peter Davis incident in Absolute Power, including my conclusion that there is no evidence to support the original allegation against Davis.

There remain a lot of unanswered questions about how Clark's office spun that story, and why, however.

If Don Brash had not been pinged the very week the magazine was being printed, the story would have had no media attention was incredibly bad timing, and exacerbated by the cover "Smoking Gun" lines which were mainly to do with other more major stories...

In hindsight, I wouldn't handle it that way again.

John Boy

Larry Williams must be disappointed after the sneer in his voice about this tonight. Authorities this, authorities that...

Well, wake up lazy Larry. 'Cos its the cops (authorities) doesn't make them honest or smart.


and In which year did these alleged 500,000 pound notes exist and where is the trial transcript...


S, I'm pretty sure the news report out of London from last November has disappeared...but a Bank of England historian, under cross-x, conceded that in fact 500,000 pound notes did exist for the purposes of interbank transfers. It was shortly after this that the judge threw out the charges even before the defence had begun their case.


But further to my last comment, the prosecution moved from "didn't exist" to not in "public circulation":

"Mr Keysworth said the £500,000 notes had never been produced for public circulation in the history of the Bank of England, and were used as a way of banking Scottish and Irish-issue notes to avoid having to print large quantities of bills."

Little wonder the trial judge and appellate judges regarded the prosecution as Michael Mouse.


And in which year did the notes exist for interbank circulation? Also, it seems that the premise of your article rests on your liberal interpretation of the events of world war 2. By mid 1941!(may-June-July) the Luftwaffe had failed to destroy the RAF and Goering long since shifted the empasis onto blitzing British cities as opposed to aTtacking airfields as in 1940. This gave Dowding the breathing space he needed to build up fighter command - your article makes it sound as if the RAF was down to using tiger moths and harsh language against the Luftwaffe. Secondly, in the ETO the RN was the more powerful force than the Kriegsmarine. The home fleet in 1941 consisted of 1 battle sqdn made of 3 battle ships, 1 battle cruiser sqdn, 2 carriers, 5 cruiser sqdns and 5 destryer flotillas. The royal navy in Europe was far from on its knees as you make out (the hood was ofcourse lost in 1941however)
It seems that the sensationalism of your story relies on a subtle changing of historical fact. It is also worth noting that the invasion of the Soviet union removed the threat of invasion of the British isles


incidentally, your other comment on the BoE employee coming clean about the use of 500,000 pound notes which allegedly (if I read your article correctly) which lays at the heart of the conspiracy isn't news - though, you did get the amounts wrong. The BoE uses giant and titans for large transfers between note issuing banks in the UK - the denominations if memory serves, though it is mid night in Paris at the moment, are 1 and 100 million pounds respectively. It is no secret, it is on the BoE website and has been for some time now. Ironic really, as I would wager that you would rail against dan brown for using partial research ...

The comments to this entry are closed.