The American Veterans Today has an interesting piece:
What do Julian Assange and Andrea Davison have in common? They both became political asylum seekers in the Ecuador Embassy in London.
Andrea Davison is an ex Arms to Iraq investigator who had direct access to No10 Downing Street and more importantly should have been a “Star Witness” at the Chilcot Inquiry (Iraq Inquiry) but was never called, despite the fact that she did give evidence at the previous Scott Inquiry (held in camera).
Andrea was an intelligence adviser to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on Arms to Iraq and also gave evidence to Scott Inquiry into Arms to Iraq, It was her whistle blowing to the then opposition leader Niel Kinnock that revealed that the then Conservative Government were selling arms to Iraq. In December 2009 she was getting a file together to send to the Chilcot enquiry.
US Air Force officer Mai Pedersen’s, Dr Kelly’s friends and colleague recently wrote to the attorney general Dominic Grieve saying that Mr Kelly could not have committed suicide. Two weeks earlier Andrea Davison had written to Dominic Grieve asking him to look into the seizure of all her documents into Arms toIraq.
A spokesman for the Attorney General stated “The Attorney remains concerned about this issue and is keen to explore how the matter might be taken forward with ministerial colleagues.” No comment has been made about Andrea’s documents.
In January this year 13 male officers raided Andrea’s home with a warrant issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act. They took from the building everything of value, confiscating her passport, drivers licence. all the keys to her property and vehicles and 7000 documents about Arms to Iraq amongst a treasure trove of other documents and valuables including her watch. 6 Months later none of these have been returned.
Following the raid, organised by Derby Police in an effort to discredit her, Andrea’s home and car has been broken into. Her car tyres have been let down several times and doors that were locked have been opened and widows likewise. She has had three break-ins that were reported to the police but no-one has been found.
Again, we have someone appearing to be an innocent martyr and in this case she may well be but if you read that post, she might not be. It’s getting so that one does not know and can’t take anything as read. For example:
In the UK, “a woman who claimed she worked for the security services has been jailed for two and a half years for a series of frauds.
“Andrea Davison, believed to have fled the country and claimed political asylum, denied 27 theft and fraud offences…
A British journalist marvelled: they produce no music, no song, no painting, nada, rien, nothing. How can they be described as “artists”? This was a severe test for their supporters, but they passed it with flying honours: that famous lover-of-art, the US State Department, paid for their first ever single being produced by The Guardian out of some images and sounds.
PR never wrote, composed or painted anything of value at all. Chris Randolph defended them in Counterpunch by comparing them with “the controversial Yegor Letov”. What a misleading comparison! Letov wrote poetry, full of obscenity but it still was poetry, while the PR have nothing but Public Relations.
Hell-bent on publicity, but artistically challenged, three young women from Russia decided – well, it sounds like a limerick. They stole a frozen chicken from a supermarket and used it as dildo; they filmed the act, called it “art” and placed it on the web. (It is still there) Their other artistic achievements were an orgy in a museum and a crude presentation of an erect prick.
Even in these dubious pieces of art their role was that of technical staff: the glory went to a Russian-Israeli artist Plucer-Sarno of Mevasseret Zion, who claimed the idea, design and copyright for himself and collected a major Russian prize. The future PR members got nothing and were described by Plucer as “ambitious provincials on the make”, or worse.
Lately they have tried to ride on a bandwagon of political struggle. That was another flop. They poured a flood of obscene words on Putin – in Red Square, in subway (underground) stations – with zero effect. They weren’t arrested, they weren’t fined, just chased away as a nuisance. And they did not attract the attention of people.
Eventually the young viragos were mobilised for an attack on the Church. By that time they were willing to do anything for their bit of publicity. And the anti-Church campaign started a few months ago, quite suddenly as if by command. The Russian Church had 20 years of peace, recovering after the Communist period, and it was surprised by ferocity of the attack.
The alleged organiser of the PR, Marat Gelman, a Russian Jewish art collector, has been connected with previous anti-Christian art actions which involved icon-smashing, imitation churches of enemas. His – and PR’s problem was that it was difficult to provoke reaction of the Church. PR made two attempts to provoke public indignation in the second cathedral of Moscow, the older Elochovsky Cathedral; both times they were expelled but not arrested.
The third time, they tried harder; they went to St Savior Cathedral that was demolished by Lazar Kaganovich in 1930s and rebuilt in 1990s; they added more blasphemy of the most obscene kind, and still they were allowed to leave in peace. Police tried their best to avoid arresting the viragos, but they had no choice after PR uploaded a video of their appearance in the cathedrals with an obscene soundtrack.
During the trial, the defence and the accused did their worst to antagonize the judge by threatening her with the wrath of the United States (sic!) and by defiantly voicing anti-Christian hate speeches. The judge had no choice but to find the accused guilty of hate crime (hooliganism with religious hate as the motive). The prosecution did not charge the accused with a more serious hate crime “with intent to cause religious strife”, though it could probably be made to stick. (It would call for a stiffer sentence; swastika-drawers charged with intent to cause strife receive five years of jail).
Which is why my Russian friend said people were speaking of 7 years.
In line with another post yesterday at my place on symbols and not knowing whom to trust any more, we really need to be more initially reserved and circumspect anytime a bona fide, cut-and-dried hero or villain is presented to us to either worship or be outraged by. The days for kneejerk, tribal reactions are long past.
Andrea Davison – I have not a clue. Yet. After much exploration in the next few days, an opinion might be forthcoming. Pussy Riot? Every source comes up with the same thing – these were shameless opportunists after publicity and they were lucky they only got the two years.
Perhaps this from Wiggia might also help:
Filed under: Politics & economics