An Apperitif

The following was compiled on a certain former councillor for RBKC.  It begs the questions, inter alia:  Where did this money come from; was the money received as backhanders; was the money declared; what else has been hidden away from the authorities?  For legal reasons, this extract from this disturbing report raises many important questions, but no adverse inferences or conclusions should necessarily be drawn from the following!

X1 does have an interest in a country cottage in the xxxxxxxxxxxxx village of xxxxxxx which cost only £50,000 in August 2000 (a suspiciously low price).  The address is:  x xxxxxx xxxx, xxx  xxxxxx, xxxxxxx xxx xxx.  Although the property is in the name of his partner X2 , leaked documents show that X1 paid £32,500 and X2 contributed £17,500.  X2 appears to be concerned about the property.  “It is the only residence I own and I guess that I could make it my principal residence for tax purposes”, he wrote in a note to his accountant.  “I am likely to sell this property and so far I have never mentioned it to any tax authorities in the UK or USA.  In the old days this would not have mattered but post 9/11 and with efforts to counter (money) laundering, this needs to be thought about”.  Last year X2 did indeed report his interest to the IRS in the USA. 

The leaked documents show the byzantine and complex offshore ownership of X1’s London properties at xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xx xxxxxx xxxxx which areowned by two BVI [British Virgin Islands] firms.  X1 also owns property in Dublin because he has a beneficial interest in an Irish company called xxxxxxxx xxx.  All three firms are administered by a Jersey company called xxx and  xxxxxxxx has two Jersey bank accounts.

X1 banks at Coutts, has numerous other accounts and no less than 35 credit cards.  There is no doubt that he has substantial capital (at least four properties) and income.  It is demonstrably untrue that he is financially reliant on  his expenses and allowances as a Councillor.  Any investigation by the Inland Revenue or the Council Ombudsman would be embarassing and create serious problems for Councillor X1.

More to follow???


Coming Soon: Part 2 of the ECVRA Committee: Too Many Freaks, Not Enough Circuses

Which Pictures Does Hazel O’Hare Describe as “Innocent”?

Who does the ECVRA Committee Describe as an “Asset”?

One Paedophile’s Opinion on Another

Sir Jimmy Savile:  Paedophile Gary Glitter “did nothing wrong”


The following is extracted from The Huffington Post:


Sir Jimmy Savile claimed convicted paedophile Gary Glitter had done “nothing wrong” and was vilified just because he was famous.

Speaking during an interview in 2009, Savile defended his pop star friend, The Sun reported.

He said: “Now Gary, all he did was take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.

“They went in the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then said, ‘Oh we’ve got a famous person, yeah we’ll have them.’

“But Gary hasn’t sold ’em, hasn’t tried to sell ’em, not tried to show the public or anything like that.”

Glitter was imprisoned in Vietnam for three years for abusing two girls, one aged 10 and one 11.

The 1970s pop star was convicted in 2006 of committing “lewd” acts while the girls were at his beach house in the southern coastal city of Vung Tau.

Following his release he was refused entry to Thailand and Hong Kong so returned to the UK.

In 1999 he served four months in prison in Britain for possessing images of child sex abuse.