John Bercow ex Berkowitz

Berkowitz is a crooked little Jew on the make. Real power is the power to abuse power. That is the point. The Speaker is, to some extent a single point of failure. That it the pay off for the followers of Antonio Gramsci, the chief theoretician of the communist party and for Lenin's Useful Idiots. NB The name change was to help infiltrate English society.

Berkowitz Is A Jew And The Speaker Of The Commons
QUOTE
Britain's parliament got its first ever Jewish speaker of the house this week, with the election of Conservative MP John Bercow to replace disgraced Labourite Michael Martin. Martin resigned last month over the expences [ sic ] scandal that has rocked the British political world.

Bercow beat nine other candidates in three rounds of voting, despite a lack of support from his own party, winning the final ballot with 322 votes to 271. The new speaker has been MP for Buckingham since 1997. Bercow, a 46-year-old father of three, was born to a Jewish middle-class family in the north London neighborhood of Finchley. In 2001, he visited Israel on the invite of a Jewish friend from the Conservative party.

Many of Bercow's supporters expect him to pursue reforms meant to restore public faith in government following the expences [ sic ] scandal.
 
UNQUOTE
Sometimes Haaretz tells the truth. This is not one of them albeit they let the cat out of the bag in re the fact that he is a Jew. The main stream media do not admit it but then they are run by Jews too.

 

MPs' expenses - Bercow
QUOTE
John Bercow “flipped” his second home from his constituency to a £540,000 flat in London and claimed the maximum possible allowances for it. Bercow, a candidate for next Speaker, "repaid" £6,500 capital gains tax on the sale of two properties. His expenses files reveal he also twice charged the public purse for the cost of hiring a chartered accountant to complete his annual tax return
UNQUOTE
All at it or just most?

 

Jew Was Right About Mandela, The Terrorist Once. Now He Lies About Him Like The Rest [ 16 December 2013 ]
"John Bercow [ the Speaker of the House of Commons ] has decreed that today’s Commons sitting will be devoted to honouring Nelson Mandela, though he has not always been such a big fan." Bercow might not have known that Mandela was a tool of the Jews back then.

Mandela Media Madness Explained
"From which one may conclude that the canonization of Mandela is far more about reinforcing the elite consensus on Multiculturalism, Immigration and the general eclipse of White political power than it is about Mandela. Just as Whites ceded power in South Africa to non-Whites, Whites throughout the world should accept the moral imperative of giving up political power as their countries are inundated by non-Whites."
Our Moral standards have been perverted by the Puppet Masters whose
Subversion of Education & the Main Stream Media has been a brilliant success. The Long March Through The Institutions worked. NB the perpetrators are showing themselves to be worse than the Nazis while feeding us their sob stories about the Holocaust®.

 


 

Berkowitz Did Another Stitch Up  [ 28 August 2014 ]
QUOTE
Will a pre-appointment hearing for Carol Mills examine the murky appointment process run by the Speaker? Investigators will be interested how the Speaker got what he wanted in the appointment of his Chaplain in 2010. An eye-witness to the events spoke to Guido today and disclosed the following.

A Speaker has no formal role in the selection of the Speaker’s Chaplain, it is a Church appointment with two roles – one in the Commons, the other across the road in the Abbey.

John Bercow insisted that half the short list of six be female. He pre-determined the winning candidate would be female. “A female is going to do that job. It has to be a female,” he is quoted as saying.

Although he had no right, he insisted on speaking to all the candidates himself.

He rang up the selection board and lobbied them.

He continued to operate in the general election period when he had no official standing as an MP.

All the short list ended up male with two perfectly suitable candidates, one clearly superior to the other.

As a result of Bercow’s lobbying, two female candidates were appended to the six.

Rose Hudson-Wilkins was appointed – but because she could not do the full Church of England job, the role was split.

Speaker Bercow signed a certificate blocking an FoI request for the relevant documents. It was a uniquely powerful certificate available only to the Speaker, preventing any challenge being considered by the Information Commissioner.

Similarities to the process selecting Carol Mills as Clerk may include

1) a predetermined decision that the winning candidate be female.
Improper interference with a procedure to produce a personally wished-for outcome.

2) Putting political imperatives before the technical requirements of the job.

3) Fighting tooth and nail against oversight or accountability.

4) Diminishing the role to make its holder more suitable for his own strategic purposes.

5) Risking a sex discrimination action by his actions.

The source also commented on the behaviour and temper of Speaker Bercow during this period, likening him not entirely humorously to Caligula. But that’s for another time.
UNQUOTE
Caligula appointed his horse as pro-consul or something of the sort.

 

Clerk Of The Australian Explains That Berkowitz Is WRONG
QUOTE
The now infamous email from the Clerk of the Australian Senate makes very clear that the issue’s around Bercow’s choice of Clerk is not one of gender, misogyny, anti-modernisation or xenophobia. The question is, can Carol Mills do the job?

CEO of the Commons? Yes. Possibly. Maybe. Hard to say when a rigged panel, a rigged process and a rigged short list produced a result the Speaker had already decided on. But Clerk? A job that is hers until she retires, as Bercow has made clear? The Times leader this morning does not think so.

Here is that email in full:

Dear Robert

We were utterly taken aback here when we saw a brief press report in early July that Carol Mills had emerged as “frontrunner” to take over from you, and have followed events with increasing disbelief and dismay. It seemed to us impossible that someone without parliamentary knowledge and experience could be under consideration for such a role. I do not usually resort to the second person, but there is not a single individual who has mentioned this to me in the past few weeks, from my most junior procedural officers or senior staff here and senators, to my State colleagues, who has not seen this candidacy as an affront to our profession and the professionalism of us all. “Bizarre” is the word most frequently used to describe the situation. I can only imagine what your staff must be thinking.

. . . (Some Australian parliamentary history deleted) . . .

Since 2004, there have been three Secretaries of DPS, all recruited from outside the parliamentary service, all bringing different skills to the position, and all serving for a relatively short time. Carol has been in the job for just over two years and came from a background in the state public service. In a federation such as ours, with the Commonwealth exercising designated legislative powers of a national character, it is not always easy for a person to move successfully from a state to the Commonwealth civil service. Nor is it a simple matter to move from serving the executive government to serving the Parliament if there is a lack of understanding of what parliaments are and what they do. I am making large generalisations here but, in my estimation, as well as having no parliamentary experience, DPS heads have increasingly demonstrated a lack of appreciation of and/or respect for the roles and status of members and senators and perhaps an overemphasis on the role and authority of the Presiding Officers (to both of whom the DPS Secretary is responsible). If the POs are onside, it seems that little else matters. The consequence of this disconnection from what Parliament does is that there has been a level of dissatisfaction with DPS – and its leadership – that now appears to be entrenched. Moreover, staff dissatisfaction within DPS is often manifested by the provision of information directly to members and senators.

Senators, in particular, have applied the blowtorch of scrutiny to the administration of the department in their thrice-yearly estimates hearings. Estimates hearings are conducted by Senate legislation committees which operate in eight subject areas. The Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee has Parliament among its responsibilities (but not, of course, the Department of the House of Representatives which answers only to that House, whereas the Senate Department and the joint bodies appear before Senate committees as a matter of course). In addition to examining bills, the legislation committees also conduct inquiries into the performance of agencies within their areas of responsibility.

Most unfortunately, in estimates hearings in 2011, when under scrutiny for administration of heritage policies and practices, DPS was caught out fabricating evidence to our F&PA Committee. This led to a broad-ranging inquiry into the management of DPS and the departure, through ill health, of the second Secretary. An interim Secretary (a retired State Clerk) was appointed pending the search for a new permanent Secretary and was able to diagnose for the Presiding Officers many issues to be addressed. This was the environment into which Carol was appointed in 2012, apparently from a background in the NSW public service that included management of such cultural facilities as the Sydney Opera House, and with a brief to shake things up.

The current role of DPS Secretary includes responsibility for building services (including visitor services), ICT, security, broadcasting and Hansard, and the library. The last is headed by a Parliamentary Librarian who, under the enabling statute, is supposed to operate independently and on the basis of a resource agreement with the DPS Secretary. The Secretary role has no procedural or constitutional dimension that you or I would recognise as a core function of a Clerk. It has no connection with the day to day business of a Parliament, other than in the maintenance of infrastructure and the provision of some ancillary services. While these are clearly very important things, they do not make a Parliament. It is essentially the role of an administrator and bears no resemblance to the role of a professional parliamentary officer.

In the Budget estimates hearings in May this year, a very senior senator questioned DPS about the use of CCTV footage in the course of internal staff disciplinary proceedings, a use that is not sanctioned by the code of practice governing the CCTV system. It appears that a DPS staff member was accused of leaving an upsetting note for a manager. Part of the so-called evidence included CCTV footage of the staff member leaving an envelope under the senior senator’s door. The senior senator had been the initiator of the 2011 Senate inquiry into DPS (which reported in 2012) and had continued to receive unsolicited information from DPS staff. It now transpired that a security system operated by DPS was trained on the office of one of its chief inquisitors and that disciplinary action (proposed dismissal) was being taken against an informant, ostensibly on another basis. I had given advice to the senator – which he released – that the circumstances raised serious questions of privilege. At the hearing, the Secretary’s understanding of parliamentary privilege was described in terms of “the protocols of the protection of members’ and senators’ rights to do business in the building” and she conceded that “there may have been some inadvertent conflict between staff management issues and the principles of the free use of everything in the building for members and senators”, before implying that the staff management issues were more important. The episode was raised as a matter of privilege by both the senior (Opposition) senator and the (Government) Committee Chair on behalf of the committee, and it has now been referred to the Senate Privileges Committee for inquiry and report. The inquiry is in its preliminary stages. Personally, I was surprised that a resignation did not follow.

This episode may have acted as a catalyst for senators’ dissatisfaction with other areas of DPS to bubble over. The result was a second wide-ranging inquiry into DPS proposed by representatives of all parties in the Senate, including Independents, and agreed to unanimously by the Senate. The terms of reference give a flavour of the areas of disquiet and concern, including about fundamental structural arrangements. This inquiry is also in its preliminary stages. While there is a widespread view that the 2004 amalgamation has not enhanced the quality or effectiveness of support for the Parliament, there is also recognition that the eggs cannot be unscrambled. The problem is a much larger one than the individuals who have taken the helm at DPS but, as similar journeys in parliamentary administration in our two largest States have shown, getting the right people into those positions is essential. The right people in both those cases have proven to be people with parliamentary knowledge and experience and the State administrations are working much more happily and effectively as a consequence.

I would have thought that establishing the parliamentary credentials of an external candidate was an essential task for any selection panel. It will no doubt be enormously embarrassing all round if the task has to be done by a select committee. The only thing more embarrassing, in my view, would be to make the proposed appointment.

Robert, such are my thoughts – apologies for their length but this affects us all. I would have no objection to your sharing these views should you consider it useful.

Very best wishes

Rosemary

Rosemary Laing
Clerk of the Senate

UNQUOTE
That is completely damning.

 

 

 

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP key.  Home

Updated  on  Saturday, 02 May 2020 14:41:34