Natalie Bennett ex Wiki
QUOTE
Natalie Louise Bennett (born 10 February 1966,
Sydney,
Australia)
is the leader of the
Green Party of England and Wales, elected on 3 September 2012.
[1]
She was editor
of
The Guardian Weekly from December 2007 until March 2012. She was
previously the deputy editor of The Guardian Weekly, and had worked at
other British newspapers.
UNQUOTE
This one is a real, live lefty. Voted communist? I would not be surprised.
Go Green. Go Communist.
From: "Living In A Madhouse" <comment-reply@wordpress.com>
To: <mike@sunray22b.net>
Subject: [New post] The new leader of the Greens knows how to keep mum
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:22:05 +0000
Reply-To: "Living In A Madhouse"
<comment+e30tgs8k2edlrvr-zdg3ke6@comment.wordpress.com>
X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.2.1 (http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/phpmailer/)
Post : The new leader of the Greens knows how to keep mum
URL :
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-knows-how-to-keep-mum/
Posted : September 9, 2012 at 11:21 am
Author : Robert Henderson
Tags : authoritarianism, censorship
Categories : Elite Mischief, Politics, Technology out of control
Robert Henderson
Natalie Bennett has been elected leader of the Green party in England and Wales
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19462474). I know Miss Bennett through
my participation in a campaign to prevent the building of the Francis Crick
Institute (FCI), a gigantic research laboratory. The primary objections to the
Institute (formerly the UK CENTRE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION or UKCRMI)
arose from the fact that research would be done on dangerous diseases at an
unreservedly inappropriate site – the FCI is being built just behind the
British Library and next door to the new Eurostar terminal at St Pancras.
Those wishing to discover more should go to my blog
http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/objection-to-ukcmri-planning-application-for-a-research-centre-in-brill-place-london-nw1/.
Miss Bennett took a leading part in that campaign which lasted several years and
ended in very predictable failure. That was because the project had the
wholehearted support of both the Labour Government and the Tory Opposition.
Normal campaigning on such grounds as danger and its contradiction of Camden
Council’s public planning policy was irrelevant, because the supposedly
impartial decision on who should be allowed to purchase the site had been
taken before the bidding process even closed. (There were several other serious
bidders with alternative uses such as housing and commercial development). The
decision was meant to be taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on the grounds of value for money. No one
outside DCMS was meant to be involved. The other bidders were spending their
money (and these types of bids are very expensive) with no hope of success.
The one serious chance to stop the building of the Institute was to expose the
illegitimate nature of the decision on who should purchase the site. This I did
using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The information gained by this
means revealed that Gordon Brown when Prime Minister had intervened to ensure
that the consortium backing the FCI bid got the land. The documents showing
Brown’s interference are at the bottom of this post. They should be read in
the context of powerful men getting their will done through expressing their
desires rather than issuing direct orders. However, many of the documents are
directly explicit about the involvement.
At the time of the campaign Miss Bennett was editor of The Guardian Weekly, a
post she occupied from December 2007 until March 2012. She was in a position
to get the story of Gordon Brown’s illicit involvement in the bidding process
into the mainstream media . I supplied her with copies of the documents
showing Brown’s interference. Miss Bennett refused to use them, something more
than a little surprising because not only was she campaigning against the
building of the FCI on the site, the interference was a category A political
story and ostensibly one right up the Guardian’s street because it dealt with
government misbehaviour behind closed doors. Miss Bennett also failed to use
the information when she was called before the Commons Science and Technology
committee to give evidence.
I will leave it to the reader to imagine Miss Bennett’s motives for not using
the information, but what is an objective fact is that she, a mainstream
journalist, refused to use information which could have stopped the building of
the FCI and was, regardless of her involvement in the campaign against the
FCI, the basis for a heavyweight political story. The honesty of her behaviour
and words as leader of the Greens should be weighed in the context of her
behaviour over the Francis Crick Institute campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Brown’s involvement in the sale of the land to UKCRMI | February 21, 2011
To make the matter as simple as possible to follow, I have selected from the
documents in my possession which show Gordon Brown’s illegitimate involvement in
the sale of the land to UKCRMI six which form a paper trail from the period
before the closing date for expressions of interest to the announcement of the
sale of the land by Gordon Brown. Some of the documents are lengthy. To
prevent readers having to plough through them I have highlighted (by bolding)
the passages in the documents which refer directly or indirectly to Brown’s
interest. Where a figure such as [40] appears, that means redaction has
occurred under the exemptions in the FOIA – the number relates to the clause
number of the exemption. These documents also give a good sketch of the
background to the bidding process.
NB This document shows that Brown was interfering even before the closing date
for expressions of interest was closed. The relevant date is not that on
Rosemary Banner’s letter, but the enclosure which came with the letter, i.e., 1
August 2007.
HM TREASURY
I Horse Guards Road London SWIA 2HQ
Rosemary Banner
Head of Information Rights Unit
Tel: 020 7270 5723
Fax:
rosemary.banner@hm-treasury.x.gsi.gov.uk
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
Mr. R Henderson
24 June 2009
Dear Mr. Henderson
Freedom of Information Act 2000: medical research centre We wrote to you on 27
August 2008 conveying the conclusions of the internal review carried out in
relation to your complaint to the Treasury about the handling of your April 2008
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.
In light of your complaint to the Information Commissioner we have reconsidered
the single item of information that falls within the scope of your request that
has not already been disclosed. As a result of this re-examination we have
identified additional information that we are now able to provide to you. Please
see attachment at the end of this letter. For the avoidance of doubt we should
make it clear that the Treasury continues to regard its original decision not to
release this information as correct at the request and review stage. However,
given the passage of time, we believe that the public interest in withholding
has diminished and can now be released.
We have, however, decided to continue to withhold two sentences from this
information under section 35(1 )(a) of the Act. These sentences continue to
relate to ongoing policy. We have explained our position to the ICO regarding
this, and are able to clarify that the redacted sentences contain information on
a bid for funding from the MRC that the Department for Business Innovation and
Skills are assessing in the normal way. Funding decisions have not concluded. As
always the Government will publish actual funding provisions once a decision has
been reached. Due to the way funding bids are negotiated and assessed this was
been a live issue at the time of the request; internal review; and remains so at
this present time. To be helpful we refer to evidence published by the select
committee in December 2007. You will see that at that time the bid was £118
million.
http://www. parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/1
85/1 85we02.htm
The Treasury is not able to comment as to what the final figure will be until a
decision has been made, I reiterate that once decided it will be announced
publicly.
Rosemary Banner
Head of Information Rights Unit
For HM Treasury
EXTRACT of relevant information extracted from a report prepared
1 August 2007
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH (NIMR) MRC concluded some years ago
that the NIMR’s future location should be close to a London Teaching Hospital.
With this in mind, MRC purchased at their risk for £28M in March 2006, but with
Treasury’s knowledge, a one-acre site at the National Temperance Hospital
location (NTH) in London.
MRC has recently learnt that its earlier preferred site for NIMR, a three-acre
site adjacent to the British Library, has now become available. This larger site
would have the major advantage of accommodating more translational research.
Encouragingly MRC has most recently proposed that the site would be developed in
partnership with Cancer Research UK (CRUK), Wellcome Trust and UCL as a
potentially strong consortium. The Wellcome Trust have mentioned that they would
be prepared to make a sizeable investment to help establish a new world
class medical research facility in North London if they can secure DCMS-owned
land and planning permission from Camden Council. At present the consortia has
registered its interest in buying the site.
This project has had a very long gestation period, during which the arguments
for the strong scientific case for relocating within London (which has a cluster
of medical research and teaching hospitals) and the need to retain MRC’s highly
skilled staff.
The recent preparation of a suitable business case has been further complicated
of late by both the re-emergence of the British Library site as a possible
location.
The PM is also most recently stated that he is very keen to make sure that
Government departments are properly coordinated on this project and that if
there is a consensus that this is indeed an exciting project then we do what we
can to make it happen. This is extremely helpful from a DIUS and MRC
perspective, but, formally a NIMR relocation project in London has yet to
receive Lyons approval from Treasury (for either the first planned NTH site or
the possible BL site).
MRC have employed Deloitte to prepare a full business case for the relocation
project.
The scientific and operational case for a London location is strong in our view.
Key Dates for the Preparation and Appraisal of the NIMR Proposal
- July 2007 — Letter to Treasury to inform CST of MRC’s proposed bid for the BL
site.
-July/August 2007 — Expression of interest in the BL site registered by the MRC
Consortium.
-September 2007 — further substantive discussions with MRC/Deloitte on Lyons
and emerging business case material.
-September 2007 — MRC NIMR project included by RCUK in the 2007 Roadmap
consultation.
-October 2007 — first full draft business case prepared by MRC/Deloitte.
-October 2007 — MRC consortium formally bid to DCMS for the BL site.
-November 2007 — Full revised business case received and Lyons case
consideration undertaken by Treasury.
-December — Progress submission to Ministers.
-December 2007 — MRC Consortium formed and, if successful in bidding, payment to
DCMS for the BL site.
-December 2007 — MRC’s NIMR project prioritised by Research Council Directors
for receipt of DIUS funding through the Large Facility Capital Fund.
-February/March 2008 — Submission to Ministers for approval of LFCF allocation
to support the MRC’s NIMR project, subject to our final assessment of (a) the
outcome of the Lyons case (b) the full business case and (C) prioritisation by
RCUK of the use of the available LFCF,
April/May 2008 — DIUS Ministerial announcement of NIMR relocation project
approval (subject to all the above).
Further Background to the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) The
NIMR is one of the MRC’s largest and oldest research institutes. The NIMR is
recognised as once of the UK’s foremost basic research institutes with a strong
scientific track record and reputation. NIMR currently houses the World
Influenza Centre (WIC), which was established by World Health Organisation
(WHO) in 1948. The Centre, works with a network of collaborating laboratories
to detect and characterise the emergence of new influenza virus anywhere in the
world including avian virus H5N1. NIMR is also at the forefront of international
research to discover how molecular changes in the virus affect its ability to
infect people and cause disease.
The NIMR has been at its present site since 1950. If it were to remain there the
buildings would need substantial refurbishment. It is currently a ‘stand-alone’
Institute not physically linked to any University, Medical School or Hospital.
In 2003 the MRC set up an expert Task Force to examine the strategic positioning
of the NIMR research within the MRC portfolio. The Task Force concluded that
their vision for NIMR would be best delivered through an intramural — i.e. with
the staff employed by MRC — research institute on a single site in central
London in partnership with a leading university and hospital (they received
proposals from King’s College and University College) and this would enhance: –
The multidisciplinary nature of NIMR’s work, providing access to other
biologists, physical scientists, engineers, and mathematicians – Opportunities
to collaborate more closely with clinicians and strengthen the focus of
translational research.
Remaining at Mill Hill was considered by the Task Force where the majority view
was that this would not be a viable option as it would not deliver Council’s
vision for a world class research institute carrying out basic, clinical and
translational research in partnership with a leading university and hospital.
The position was endorsed by the MRC Council. This disappointed some staff at
NIMR and there has been much lobbying of Ministers and MPs and as a result the
issue has received some media interest.
MRC Council selected UCL as its preferred partner for the renewal and relocation
of NIMR in Central London, in close proximity to a major teaching hospital
(University College Hospital) and relevant university departments, including
chemistry and physics.
The MRC Council approved an outline Business Plan for the renewal and relocation
of NIMR in July 2005. The Business Plan confirmed the feasibility of developing
the renewed Institute on the National Temperance Hospital (NTH) site in
Hampstead Road, which MRC bought (at its own risk but with Treasury’s
knowledge), for £28M in 2006, suggesting that the new site could provide
accommodation for up to 1,058 staff, including 248 from UCL and potentially 40
additional research staff.
MRC have recognised that their development of the business case needed to ensure
a successful project and to satisfy the requirements of DIUS and Treasury
requires additional skills to those residing within the MRC and most recently
further advice has been procured by MRC from Deloitte for assistance with
preparation of the business case.
It was also not our intention at review stage to withhold names of senior civil
servants of the email provided at initial request. While we explained that the
sender was Jeremy Heywood from the Cabinet Office we overlooked to state the
other officials who were recipients of that email. They were: The Permanent
Secretaries of DIUS and DCMS Ian Watmore and Jonathan Stephens; the Managing
Director of Public Spending in HMT, John Kingman; and the Chief Operating
Officer, DCMS Nicholas Holgate.
————————————————————————————
NB This document shows Brown’s interest just before the short list of bidders
was decided.
RESTRICTED – POLICY & COMMERCIAL
To James Purnell Margaret Hodge, Jonathan Stephens,Ros Brayfield
From Nicholas Holgate
Date 18 September 2007 ____________
SALE OF LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY
Issue: mainly for information but also to ask how you would wish to be involved
in this transaction.
The Department owns 3.6 acres to the north of the British Library. With the
completion of the new train terminal, we are able to sell it and have been
conducting a competitive process so that Ministers can choose what represents
best value, comprising not just the proceeds from sale but also the use to which
the bidder intends to put the land.
2. We are bound to be concerned about proceeds:
a. There is an obvious obligation, on Jonathan as the department’s Accounting
Officer, to secure the best return we can for the taxpayer;
b. the Government is close to breaching its fiscal rules and has set itself a
demanding target for asset disposals. Your predecessor strongly rebutted the
Treasury’s proposal that we should sell assets worth £150m by 2010-11 and it has
not formally been debated since your arrival; but we are likely to have to raise
some funds from disposals. In any case:
c. proceeds from this sale are earmarked to contribute towards the budget of the
Olympic Delivery Authority for 2007-08.
3. Subject to Treasury agreement, we can nevertheless also take public value”
into account. We are aware of two such bids one led by the Medical Research
Council, with support from the Wellcome Foundation and others for a research
facility; and one that wishes to remain confidential but which is essentially
related to faith and education.
4. The facts are:
a. We have now received 28 bids in response to a prospectus. Amongst other
things, the prospectus drew attention to the local planning policy guidance,
which steers bidders towards a scheme that is roughly 50:50 commercial and
residential development with 50% affordable housing. It is Camden Borough
Council and the Mayor who will have the last word on what is in fact built on
the site;
b. Our professional advisers have scored the bids on various criteria and are
interviewing the top seven plus two others (the medical research bid is one of
the two others) next week;
c. There is a significant financial gap between the top bids and the medical
research bid.
5. Jonathan and I are meeting Jeremy Heywood (who is aware of both public value
bids), Ian Watmore (Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills) and John
Kingman (Treasury) tomorrow. We need to agree an orderly and appropriate process
for selling the land, given the public value bidders, other Departments’
interest and the likelihood that the Prime Minister might wish to take an
interest too.
6. We will report back to you then. Subject to your views and others’, one
potential way forward is a. DIUS economists be invited to assess the public
value of the medical research bid. We will need some such calculation if we sell
at a discount. DCMS should not do this as we should display some neutrality
between bidders . We decide whether we expect the medical research bid to match
the best bid, improve their offer but not necessarily to match, or take a lower
value on the chin. Given their backers, they can afford to match. But they may
refuse to play; and/or we may not wish to be seen to be reducing their funding
for good causes just to maximise proceeds;
c. We see whether there is a Government champion for the other bidder;
and
d. We then fairly characterise the two public value bidders and the best
commercial bid (or bids, if they differ significantly in what they propose) to
Ministers and No 10 for a decision.
Nicholas Holgate
Chief Operating Officer
————————————————————————————
NB This shows Brown’s interest a few weeks before the sale to UKCRMI was agreed.
BRIEFING NOTE FROM POLICY ADVISERS DATED 12 NOVEMBER 2007 TO THE PRIME MINISTER
COPIED TO No 10 OFFICIALS.
THE NOTE WAS ENTITLED: PROJECT BLISS – CREATING A WORLD-LEADING MEDICAL RESEARCH
FACILITY IN LONDON
Disclosable extracts:
We are close to being ready to announce Government support for the creation of a
world-leading medical research facility in London.
The key component being finalised is the sale of land, which will allow the
BLISS partner organisations (the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK,
the Wellcome Trust and University College London) to develop their detailed
proposals for the creation of the centre.
We anticipate that the deal will be finalised over the next few days and we
should be able to announce the outcome of the process In the next few weeks. On
current plans, we would expect the sale to complete during December and
preparations for development to begin straight away. The expectation is that the
Institute would be up and running by 2012.
This is an important opportunity to demonstrate what the UK’s commitment to
medical research really means in practice. And it fits very well with the focus
of your intended health speech.
What would you be announcing?
• We would be committing Government support to the creation of a new centre for
UK biomedical research, with 1,500+ scientists, at a level commensurate with the
very best institutions in the world.
• The BLISS consortium brings together four of the leading medical research
institutions in the UK – the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the
Wellcome Trust and University College London.
• The Centre responds to the vision, outlined in Sir David Cooksey’s review of
UK health research presented to Treasury in 2006, of better integration and
translation of research into patient and public benefit. The Centre will benefit
from economies of scale, enhanced infrastructure, the critical mass to optimise
collaboration, and the capacity to take scientific discoveries from the lab
bench to the hospital bed.
• These four key partners, together with the expectation that other
organisations would come forward to invest In the centre or to lease research
space, bring a powerful combination of skills and capabilities — basic research,
applied research, the capabilities to convert research and innovation for public
and commercial use, and the skills and opportunities presented by access to a
leading university and teaching hospital. The potential, In terms of
understanding disease, and developing new drugs, treatments and cures, is huge.
How to announce?
The suggestion is that you announce this a few days before your health speech,
planned for 6th December. We would suggest a visit to a high-tech medical site
in the morning to get pictures, followed by a meeting at No 10 with all relevant
stakeholders (primarily the four partner organisations) at which you make the
formal announcement and ‘launch’ the project. Let us know your thoughts on
whether this is the right way to proceed with the BLISS announcement?
Background
The vision for the BLISS Centre has six themes:
Research innovation and excellence • Bring together outstanding scientists from
two world-class research institutes (MRC NIMR and the Cancer Research UK London
Research Institute), collaborating with UCL, to address fundamental questions of
human health and disease. • Through Wellcome Trust funding, development of tools
for integrative biology, with an emphasis on the development of advanced
microscopy imaging and on the mathematical and computational needs in this field.
• Increase scientific innovation through new links with the physical sciences,
life sciences, mathematics, engineering and the social Sciences at UCLI
• Develop close links between the Centre and the outstanding hospitals nearby
(Including the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases at Queens Square, Great
Ormond Street, Moorfields and University College Hospital) and other major
hospitals in London (including Hammersmith Hospital and the MRC Clinical
Sciences Centre at Hammersmith, and the Maudsley Hospital and the Institute of
Psychiatry)1 State-of-the-art research facilities
• Develop a multidisciplinary research complex operating in state-of-the-art
facilities, with the size and diversity to be internationally competitive with
the world’s top research institutes.
• Establish a new centre for development of advanced imaging technologies and
analysis. A national focus for biomedical science
• Interact with other local centres of excellence to foster and facilitate
collaboration between basic, translational and Clinical scientists1 Host
national and international research meetings and conferences, facilitated by its
proximity to national and International transport links and the conference
facilities of the British Library. An effective interface with technology
transfer and development
• Facilitate the effective development of therapeutic and diagnostic devices and
drugs, by allowing the technology transfer arms of MRC and Cancer Research UK to
work closely together.
• Drive innovation in developing tests and technologies through interaction
between researchers and development laboratories.
Finding and developing the scientists of the future • Provide an attractive
environment to secure and retain world-class scientists by providing an
outstanding setting for research and collaboration. • Boost the recruitment and
training of scientists and doctors of the future by providing an excellent
environment for postgraduate and postdoctoral training, and for training
outstanding clinical scientists committed to medical research.
Engaging with the public
• Educate the public on important issues in health and disease.
• Bring together and enhance partners’ public information and education
programmes, with a particular focus on engaging younger people.
————————————————————————————
NB This document shows Brown’s involvement just prior to the sale of the land.
BRIEFING NOTE FROM NO 10 POLICY ADVISER TO THE PRIME MINISTER DATED 27 NOVEMBER
2007
COPIED TO NO 10 OFFICIALS
ENTITLED “MEETING WITH PAUL NURSE ON BLISS PROJECT”
You are meeting Paul Nurse who is likely to lead the BLISS institute, along,
with Mark Walport, Director of The Wellcome Trust, and Harpal Kumar, Head of
Cancer Research, two partners in BLISS
We are close to being ready to announce Government support for plans to create a
world-leading medical research facility in London, led by the BLISS consortium
made up of the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust
and University College London.
We have now effectively finalised negotiations on the sale of the 35 acre site,
adjacent to the British Library: a price has been agreed with DCMS, and the deal
is complete subject to agreement on how much of the proceeds DCMS will retain.
We are therefore ready for an announcement next week on the sale of the land –
but will not be announcing full details of the project overall, as there remain
various Issues to resolve, including reaching agreement on business plans and
gaining planning permission. We would therefore announce the Government’s
support for the vision of the new centre – rather than definitive support for
the centre itself. The Project BLISS consortium brings together four leading
medical research institutions in the UK and will create a new centre for UK
biomedical research, with 1,500+ scientists, at a level commensurate with the
very best Institutions in the world.
The Centre responds to the vision, outlined in Sir David Cooksey’s review of UK
health research presented to Treasury in 2006, of better integration and
translation of research into patient and public benefit.
The Centre will benefit from economies of scale, enhanced infrastructure, the
critical mass to optimise collaboration, and the capacity to take scientific
discoveries from the lab bench to the hospital bed. The Centre will create a
place for:
• collaboration, between leading scientists and clinicians, working on some of
the most pressing medical problems of our time;
• excellence, maintaining the quality of the UK’s life sciences research base;
• application, making links between research, medical practice and the
pharmaceutical industry;
• innovation, translating research innovation into new treatments;
• learning, bringing forward a new generation of scientific leaders;
•discovery, showcasing the challenges and potential of life sciences to a new
audience.
• Using the close proximity to the British Library, the Centre will develop a
public engagement and education programme.
Sir Paul Nurse
Sir Paul Nurse is President of Rockefeller University, formerly Joint Director
General of Cancer Research UK and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Medicine.
His appointment has not yet been publicly announced, but he is set to lead the
project as chair the Scientific Planning Committee.
Briefing note from Bliss
————————————————————————————
NB This document from just before the sale of the land shows the extent of
Brown’s involvement with the suggestion that he would arbitrate.
Sent: 27 November 2007 13:09
To: HOLGATE NICHOLAS
Cc: _[40]_____________
Subject: RESTRICTED – Land to the North
Hi Nicholas,
Jonathan spoke to Jeremy Heywood this morning. Jeremy said he needed the bid to
be agreed by next Wednesday – 5 Dec (or Thursday latest) as PM wanted to get
MRC in then (or possible public announcement.
Jonathan explained that there are two issues from our point of view: .No revised
formal offer has been received by DCMS .HMT are not being helpful of recycling
returns – without an improved offer from HMT JS said it would he v hard to
justify.
JR said he thought the offer was sent to us yesterday – have checked but
nothing in JSs post or email – JH will chase. JH also said he would go back to
HMT to see what more they can do, but that ultimately PM may have to arbitrate.
Cheers
[40]
[40]
Private Secretary to Jonathan Stephens
Department for (Culture, Media and Sport 2-4 Cockpur Street, London
SWlY 5Dl1 email: [40]@culture.gsi.gov.uk tel: 0207211 fax: 020 72116259
————————————————————————————
NB This document shows Brown’s state of mind immediately after the sale of the
land was agreed.
Treasury document
From – name censored
Sent: 04 December 2007 19:49
To: name(s) censored.
CC: name(s) censored)
Thanks for everyone’s help and support in making the announcement tomorrow
happen. The PM is truly delighted that departments have been able to work
together to secure this huge opportunity for Britain
RESTRICTED – COMMERCIAL
--
WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!