What kind of dirt could the CIA possibly have on Tony Blair that would compel him, a nominal socialist who lived through the Thatcher Era, to jump through hoops unequivocally supporting anything that comes out of the Whitehouse? Well, these people reckon that he's protecting a high-ranking paedophile ring involving many senior government officials, and suggests that his born-again Neo-Conservative beliefs may be the result of his being blackmailed by US intelligence agencies over this. Supposedly the Dunblane school massacre was connected to this, and the truth about the massacre has been sealed under the 100-year rule.
There are only three levels of secrecy in the UK for state secrets, the 30 year rule, the 80 year rule and the 100 year rule. Normal secrets, like Cabinet discussions, government papers, espionage, all that, are under the 30 year rule. Only a very small number of things ever reached the 80 year rule, particularly events in the Sudan with Kitchener in 1902, where it seems that an act of genocide was committed... Of them, the darkest of state secrets, when the events of '02 were getting a bit close to their limit for comfort, a further class of secrets was created to last a hundred years, and tiny number of things were put in it - e.g. Kitchener in '02, some World War I things." But none of these things can be said to apply to Dunblane. That was a case of a common criminal [and] sexual pervert committing some fairly ordinary murders, of a kind that happen from time to time. There must be issues of profound national importance working here, and I put it to you that anything that involves certain events in Scotland is more likely to be someone of cabinet level than anything else.
Of course, given the nature of the site this was posted on, its credibility may be somewhat questionable. Can anybody shed any light on it? (via Leviathan)

Posted by: Ben Laden | http://leviathan.weblogs.com | Sun Mar 16 12:54:08 2003

Well I think David Icke has been carrying on about this stuff for a while, however it may well be there is something to it. After all, this 100 year supression thing is all very irregular. Hmm, I must see what VOMIT (Victims of Masonic Inspired Terrorism) have to say about it if I can find their URL.

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Sun Mar 16 13:12:53 2003

Yes; I wonder what the relationship between the high-ranking paedophile ring in Parliament and the giant shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace is like.

Posted by: Alex | http:// | Sun Mar 16 14:10:11 2003

I've been wondering what it was that the US has over both the UK and Terror Australis; it had to be more than just a funny-handshake-brigade directive.

(Perhaps it's a summary of proof of the theory that the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen, or as some of the tinfoil hat brigade allege, performed by the US gubmint itself. "We can do this to you" would be a fairly convincing argument.)

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Sun Mar 16 14:25:36 2003

I don't think they'd need much over Australia, given what a dyed-in-the-wool neocon Howard is. Maybe if Labor was in power they'd need to threaten another Whitlam-style dismissal, perhaps suggesting that this time the CIA's appointed ruler won't be Malcolm Fraser.

Posted by: VICTIM | http:// | Thu Sep 8 15:39:49 2005

One link is George Robertson, formerly MP, mason and subsequently secretary general of NATO. He acted as a referee on Thomas Hamilton's application for a firearms certificate, stating that he knew no reason why Hamilton should be refused ownership of a firearm and that Hamilton was of "sound character". Robertson's son also attended the school in Dunblaine where the atrocity took place and was one of Hamilton's "special boys", accompanying him on his "camping trips". Upsetting as this subject is, please read more about it. There's a lot of info on the internet, including the full Cullen Report, which makes for very, very interesting reading. The whole thing stinks of cover-up and lies by omission.

Posted by: Andrew Milner | | Wed May 10 11:52:28 2006

For a long time I felt the CIA must have been blackmailing Blair over some dark secret from his (or Labour's) past. However, admittedly subjectively, I now feel that Blair pragmatically decided that there was a massive difference between Britain enjoying America's cooperation as opposed to US indifference, or worse the US actively working against Britain's best interests. Also, Desert Storm went well, so why quit when you’re winning. It pains me to write this, because for the past year I fall asleep with the incantation: "Misfortune to Tony Blair". Seems to be working.

Want to say something? Do so here.

Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.

Display name:
URL:(optional)
To prove that you are not a bot, please enter the text in the image on the right in the field below it.

Your Comment:

Remember my details.

Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.