In 2002, Adam Price (MP) obtained a letter written by Tony Blair to the Romanian Government in support of Lakshmi Mittal's LNM steel company, which was in the process of bidding to buy Romania's state-owned steel industry. This revelation caused controversy, because Mittal had given £125,000 to the British Labour Party the previous year.

Although Blair defended his letter as simply "celebrating the success" of a British company, he was criticised because LNM was registered in the Dutch Antilles and employed less than 1% of its workforce in the UK. LNM was a "major global competitor of Britain's own struggling steel industry". Blair's letter hinted that the privatisation of the firm and sale to Mittal might help smooth the way for Romania's entry into the European Union. It also had a passage, removed prior to Blair's signing of it, describing Mittal as "a friend".

Blair openly supported a foreign company in the full knowledge that same company would be a direct competitor to our own British Steel, with the ability to undercut prices that would eventually force British Steel into receivership, and into the hands of Indian owned Tata Steel.

Currently (September 2023) the UK government is offering Tata Steel £500 million of tax payers money to safeguard UK production, but with a loss of 75% of their UK workforce.

While ex Prime Minister Tony Blair was under criminal suspicion in the "honours-for-cash" scandal that had rocked his Labour government back in the late 1990's, we were told (very quietly) that there was an even more explosive scandal that Blair, up to that point, had managed to hide behind the draconian British policy of issuing 'D-Notices' - government orders that prohibit the British media from reporting on certain '(so called) National Security' cases.

In 1999, an international investigation of Child Pornographers and Paedophiles run by Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation 'Ore', resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case, and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed 'under caution' by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation.

In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government. However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice.

Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

In the United States, Operation Ore's counterpart was Operation Avalanche. However, U.S. authorities only charged 100 people out of 35,000 investigated. The international paedophile investigation began when Dallas police and the US Postal Inspection Service raided the offices of Landslide Productions which was operating out of Fort Worth, Texas, and confiscated records on thousands of people around the world who were Child Pornography customers of the firm. Landslide's halcyon days as a Fort Worth-based international online marketplace of kiddie porn was during the term of Texas Governor George W. Bush. The operations of Landslide Productions must have been known to loca, regional, and national law enforcement agencies as well as the Governors Office.

It was learned that the Bush administration, like that of Blair, was rife with paedophiles in top positions. The paedophile network also extended to the US Defence Industry, particularly some of the companies that have been involved in the sexual abuse of minors at overt and covert U.S. prisons in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Thailand, and also at three prisons in Ethiopia.

Despit Blair's attempt to silence the media by issuing his D-Notices the Sunday Times reported that they had obtained the FBI list of Labour MPs who used their credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, although they remain to this day 'gagged'. Before Blair had issued his gagging order the police were able to make one arrest. Phillip Lyon - one of Blair's most important aides - was arrested and charged with multiple counts of child pornography.

Lyon used his Parliamentary computer 'to pursue his interest and perhaps curiosity in this type of material. He searched for it on the internet and, when found, downloaded it for his delectation later', said Ms Karmy-Jones (Prosecution).

Lyon, 38, from Stanford le Hope in Essex, denied the 12 specimen charges of making an indecent image of a child between October 2001 and April 2002. "It is like a drug, you try one and you want to try something harder, and it has a snowball effect." he is alleged to have told officers when arrested.

Lyon worked in the Upper Table Office, where he met MPs, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker while checking parliamentary questions and administering early day motions. "He needed skills in computing and the internet" said Ms Karmy-Jones. "He is an intelligent individual, and knew full well what he was doing." When first interviewed, he allegedly told police he did not distribute material - "I just look at pictures."

Ms Karmy-Jones told jurors "This case is about child pornography - what others might call photos of child abuse. When I say child abuse, it may sound harsh, but it is the nature of these images which is central to the case. They are unpleasant and disturbing." She added "the issue might be whether it was Lyon who downloaded the images. We say it is clear he was that man."

Lyons was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment in the August of 2003.

Claimed £6,990 for roof repairs to his constituency home in Sedgefield. He had submitted the invoice dated 8 June 2007 on 25 June – two days before he was replaced as Prime Minister. He had announced his decision to stand down as Prime Minister on 10 May 2007.

The report – described by BBC News as "damning", by The Guardian as a "crushing verdict", and by The Telegraph as "scathing" – was broadly critical of the actions of the British government and military in making the case for the war, in tactics and in planning for the aftermath of the Iraq War. Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian wrote that the report "could hardly be more damning" of Tony Blair and "was an unprecedented, devastating indictment of how a prime minister was allowed to make decisions by discarding all pretence at cabinet government, subverting the intelligence agencies, and making exaggerated claims about threats to Britain's national security".

The report found that in the run-up to the war, peaceful diplomatic options to avoid instability and WMD proliferation had not been exhausted, and that the war was therefore "not a last resort". Intervention might have become necessary later, but at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not pose an immediate threat and the majority of the UN Security Council supported the continuation of UN weapons inspections and monitoring.

The report does not question Blair's personal belief that there was a case for war, only the way he presented the evidence that he had. The report cleared the Prime Minister's Office of influencing the Iraq Dossier (the "Dodgy Dossier"), which contained the claim that Iraq possessed the ability to launch WMD within 45 minutes, and instead laid the blame for the weaknesses in its evidence on the Joint Intelligence Committee.

More specifically, the report blamed Secret Intelligence Service (better known as MI6) head Richard Dearlove who presented so-called "hot" intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction provided by an Iraqi with "phenomenal access" to high levels in the Iraqi government directly to Blair, without first confirming its accuracy. The investigators found that references to this intelligence in government reports were over-certain and did not adequately stress uncertainties and nuance. The informant was later found to have been lying. The Chilcot report states that "personal intervention by Dearlove and its urgency gave added weight to a report that had not been properly evaluated and would have coloured the perception of ministers and senior officials". The day after the report was published, Blair conceded that he should have challenged such intelligence reports before relying on them to justify military action in Iraq.

Some MI6 staff had also expressed concerns about the quality of its source – in particular, noting that an inaccurate detail about storing chemical weapons in glass containers appeared to have been taken from Michael Bay's film The Rock – and expressed doubts about its reliability. Nonetheless, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asked MI6 to use the source to provide "silver bullet intelligence".

The inquiry was not about the legality of military action and could not rule on this as it was not an internationally recognised court. However, the report did criticise the process by which the government investigated the legal basis for the war, finding it "far from satisfactory". Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, should have provided a detailed written report to Cabinet, but was instead asked to provide oral evidence without extensive questioning, and he did not explain what the basis would be for deciding whether Iraq had violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Goldsmith's advice changed between January 2003 – when he said that a second resolution was necessary – and March 2003 – when he said that Resolution 1441 was sufficient – and the report describes pressure being applied by the Prime Minister's Office to get Goldsmith to revise his opinion. By ultimately going to war without a Security Council resolution, the UK was "undermining the Security Council's authority".

The report found that Blair had attempted to persuade Bush of the need to seek support from the UN, European allies and Arab states, but that he "overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq". The report accused Blair personally of being too conciliatory towards the US, saying: "Despite concerns about the state of US planning, he did not make an agreement on a satisfactory post-conflict plan a condition of UK participation in military action", and drew attention to a sentence from a private memo from Blair to Bush which read "I will be with you whatever". Contrary to Tony Blair's claims, Chilcot found that the Special Relationship did not require unquestioning agreement between the UK and the US, and the report identified several previous occasions where one country had gone to war without the other without long-term damage to diplomatic relations, including the Vietnam War and Falklands War.

The report found that British planning for a post-Ba'athist Iraq was "wholly inadequate" and that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) left UK forces in Iraq without adequate equipment or a plan. It also found that there was no ministerial oversight of post-conflict strategy.

Initial planning for the war assumed an invasion from the north, but Turkey refused permission for UK troops to cross its border. Plans were therefore completely rewritten two months before the war began with insufficient time to assess the dangers or prepare the brigades.

Soldiers were not issued with key equipment, and there were shortfalls in the provision of helicopters, armoured vehicles and in reconnaissance and intelligence assets. In addition, the MoD was slow to respond to the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Although military officials presented several concerns about the risks of the war, the report found that this was not taken into account in planning. "The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability and Al Qaeda activity in Iraq were each explicitly identified before the invasion". A "can-do" attitude among military officials also led them to downplay dangers and setbacks during briefings.

The report also described the situation in the city of Basra, where British forces were forced to make a deal with insurgents to end attacks on British troops, as "humiliating".

According to the report, British military action did not achieve its goals, and Baghdad and south-east Iraq destabilised rapidly in the wake of the invasion.

At the time, the UK was also involved in the War in Afghanistan and military commanders felt that there was more potential for success there, which meant that equipment, manpower and the attention of commanders were diverted from Iraq in the later stages of the war, exacerbating difficulties.

In a statement to the House of Commons the afternoon after the inquiry's report was released, the then Prime Minister David Cameron refused to say whether the Iraq War was "a mistake" or "wrong" and rejected calls for an apology to be issued on behalf of the Conservative Party for its role in the lead-up to the war. Cameron said that he did not see "a huge amount of point" in "replaying all the arguments of the day" and said that focus should instead be on learning "the lessons of what happened and what needs to be put in place to make sure that mistakes cannot be made in future".

The same day, US State Department spokesperson John Kirby stated in the daily White House press briefing that the US would not respond to the report and that reporters should direct their questions to British officials instead, explaining that their focus was now on Syria rather than a decision made 13 years prior: "... we're not going to make a judgment one way or the other about this report, and I'll let British officials speak to the degree to which they intend to derive lessons learned from it. That's really, again, for them to talk to. We're not going to go through it, we're not going to examine it, we're not going to try to do an analysis of it or make a judgment of the findings one way or the other. Our focus, again, is on the challenges we have in Iraq and Syria right now, and that's where our focus is".

After the report was issued, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition and leader of the Labour Party - who had voted against military action - gave a speech in Westminster stating: "I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003" which he called an "act of military aggression launched on a false pretext" something that has "long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international opinion". Corbyn specifically apologised to "the people of Iraq"; to the families of British soldiers who died in Iraq or returned injured; and to "the millions of British citizens who feel our democracy was traduced and undermined by the way in which the decision to go to war was taken on".

In a statement by Alex Salmond released after the inquiry's report was issued, the Scottish National Party said: "After such carnage, people will ask inevitable questions of was conflict inevitable and worthwhile? The answer from Chilcot is undoubtedly no. And who is responsible? The answer is undoubtedly Tony Blair. There must now be a consideration of what political or legal consequences are appropriate for those responsible".

After the inquiry's report was issued, Tony Blair acknowledged that the report made "real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States" but cited sections of the report that he said "should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit". He stated: "whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country. ... I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse. I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world".

Following the publication of the report, John Prescott, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the Iraq War, said that the war was illegal.

The Financial Times reported, 'Every previous inquiry into Britain's decision to invade Iraq has swiftly been condemned by the public as a "whitewash". Such a description hardly applies to the monumental inquest that has been published by Sir John Chilcot. ... After Lord Hutton's report in 2003 and the Butler report the following year, the one thing Sir John could not have afforded to produce was another report that was dismissed as a whitewash.'

Political commentators were split as to what extent the report showed that Tony Blair had lied or deliberately misled Parliament and the public. NBC News said that the report "stops short of saying Blair lied", the chief political commentator for the Financial Times, Philip Stephens, said that Blair's "sin was one of certitude rather than deceit", and writing for Bloomberg View, Eli Lake said that the report proved Blair "didn't lie his way into Iraq". Speaking in Parliament, Corbyn said that MPs who voted for the war were "misled by a small number of leading figures in the Government" who "were none too scrupulous about how they made their case for war", and Caroline Lucas, MP for the Green Party, said that contradictions between public statements and private memos to Bush proved that Blair was "lying" about whether war could have been averted. Philippe Sands said the report pulled its punches but marshalled the factual evidence in such a way that an inference of lying, deceit or manipulation was possible.

The timing and nature of the inquiry, and particularly the fact that it would not issue its report until after the 2010 general election—generated political controversy. Conservative Party leader David Cameron dismissed the inquiry as "an establishment stitch-up", and the Liberal Democrats threatened a boycott. In a parliamentary debate over the establishment of the inquiry, MPs from all the major parties criticised the government's selection of its members. MPs drew attention to the absence of anyone with first-hand military expertise, the absence of members with acknowledged or proven inquisitorial skills, and the absence of any elected representatives. Several MPs drew attention to the fact that Chilcot would be unable to receive evidence under oath. Gilbert's appointment to the enquiry was criticised on the basis that he had once compared Bush and Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill.

The criticism by the Liberal Democrats continued with the start of public hearings, with party leader Nick Clegg accusing the government of "suffocating" the inquiry, referring to the power given to government departments to veto sections of the final report. Meanwhile, a group of anti-war protestors staged a demonstration outside the conference centre. Concerns were also raised about the expertise of the panel, particularly with regard to issues of legality by senior judges. On 22 November 2009, former British Ambassador Oliver Miles published an article in the Independent on Sunday, in which he questioned the appointment to the inquiry panel of two British historians on the basis of their previous support for Israel. In a diplomatic cable from the US embassy in London, released as part of Cablegate, Jon Day, director general for security policy at the British Ministry of Defence is cited having promised the US to have "put measures in place to protect your interests" regarding the inquiry. This has been interpreted as an indication that the inquiry is restricted "to minimize embarrassment for the United States."

In 2012, Attorney General Dominic Grieve was criticised when he vetoed the release of documents to the inquiry detailing minutes of Cabinet meetings in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Concurrently, the Foreign Office successfully appealed against a judge's ruling and blocked the disclosure of extracts of a conversation between Bush and Blair moments before the invasion. The British government stated that revealing the content of a phone call between Bush and Blair moments before the invasion would later present a "significant danger" to British–American relations. In his submission to the inquiry, Philippe Sands observed that:

** an independent Dutch Inquiry has recently concluded – unanimously and without ambiguity – that the war was not justified under international law. The Dutch inquiry Committee was presided by W.J.M. Davids, a distinguished former President of the Dutch Supreme Court, and four of its seven members were lawyers. The Dutch Committee was well-placed to address the substantive legal issues. I note, however, that the composition of this Inquiry includes no members with any legal background.

In 2011, the Independent published an article with 15 charges that have yet to be answered by the inquiry. Speaking at a public meeting in 2013, David Owen said that the inquiry "is being prevented from revealing extracts that they believe relevant from exchanges between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair". He blamed Blair and Cameron for this state of affairs, who he believed have entered into a private deal to prevent the publication of important documents out of mutual self-interest. It emerged that the Cabinet Office was resisting the release of "more than 130 records of conversations" between Bush and Blair, as well as "25 notes from Mr Blair to President Bush" and "some 200 cabinet-level discussions".

The report has been criticised for ignoring the role of the UK media. The UK media, "played on the ‘hearts and minds’ of the British public, constructing a moral case for the Iraq invasion that would convince the general population."

The length of time taken for the inquiry to complete its report is seen by many as excessive, and has been widely criticised.

Not much. The government have promised to learn from their (then) mistakes - which they haven't. Despite their guilt neither Tony Blair or George Bush have been arrested and prosecuted for war crimes - "There's one law for thee, and one law for me"

Tony Blair has been condemned after saying Brexit "Can be stopped!" and calling for a Remainers to unite and form an insurgency to make the case for Britain remaining in the EU.

Blair and former PM John Major have been suggesting the public deserve to have a say on the finalised terms of the Brexit deal when Britain leaves the European Union. The former Labour PM said in an interview with the New Statesman there was a way that Brexit could be stopped, despite 17.4million people voting to Leave.

While speaking at a dinner in Westminster, Major, who campaigned for Remain, said "The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy and it should not apply in this particular democracy."

A furious Nick Ferrari hit out at both Blair and Major, dismissing the former with just one word yesterday. Speaking on his LBC show Ferrari fumed "In the unlikely event you're listening to this, taking time off from counting your money – and that must be an entire day's work I would imagine – just one word for you sir: Chilcot!"

"Your reputation was absolutely fatally damaged by that. You were, at best, economic with the truth, I think I'm allowed to say, many people believe you took us to a calamitous war on the basis of an absolute lie and a fabrication." The LBC host unleashed his anger on the former Labour leader by highlighting how unpopular he now is across Britain.

In his interview published on Thursday, Blair admitted he could not return to politics as there would be too much 'hostility' towards him. The 63-year-old said "There are elements of the media who would literally move to Destroy Mode if I tried to do that."

He continued talking about Brexit, saying "I'm not saying it will [be stopped], by the way, but it could. I'm just saying until you see what it means, how do you know?"

Writing in the New European in October, Blair said "The issue is not whether we ignore the will of the people, but whether, as information becomes available, and facts take the place of claims, the will of the people shifts. Maybe it won't, in which case people like me will have to accept it. But surely we are entitled to try to persuade, to make the argument, and not to be whipped into line to support a decision we genuinely believe is a catastrophe for the country we love."

Blair later told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that the UK should not rule out the possibility of another referendum. He said "If it becomes clear that this is either a deal that doesn't make it worth our while leaving, or a deal that is so serious in its implications that people may decide they don't want to go, there's got to be some way, either through parliament, through an election, possibly through a referendum, in which people express their view." adding "There is no reason why we should close off any options. The country has taken a decision in a referendum, there is no way that decision can be reversed, unless it becomes clear once people see the facts they change their mind."

Blair was under fire when the Chilcot Report was released earlier this year, which studied the controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003, leaving current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to apologise for the conflict on behalf of the party.

Ferrari continued with his wrath targeted at the former PM, criticising him also for his money making methods since quitting power. The LBC host said "So whether you like or you don't like Brexit, respectfully just stay there. Count your houses. You've got more houses than Foxtons for God's sake. Why don't you just spend time driving around those and checking that the roofs are all in order." A reference to Blair claiming the repair of the roof on his home from the tax-payer a week before resigning.

These MPs, Civil Servants, and public figures all tried to cancel the referendum result of (so called) BREXIT despite the votes being counted and all legal paths were followed correctly. Predictably the voters for Yes (leave the political block that has become the EU) were branded "Racists", "Xenophobes" (and other racial slurs) as well as being labelled "Stupid", "Didn't know what they were voting for", "shouldn't have been allowed to vote", etc.

Below are some quotes from those that stand out as they most extreme insults, slurs, and basically childish outcry's from those on the opposite side.

Tony Blair, John Major, Nick Clegg and Tim Farron are among the big name political figures openly trying to put the brakes on Britain's EU exit and regularly holding meetings to put together a battle plan.

Dozens of MPs are reportedly wrestling with the dilemma of not wanting Britain to leave the European Union at the same time as not wanting to be seen to go against the will of the people.

But an insider of the new Remain movement, which also reportedly includes Chuka Umunna and Anna Soubry, told the Guardian "It's a long process of gradually bringing people round to our way of thinking, on all sides".

"A lot of people are a bit unsure what to do - they're caught between their own views and those expressed at the ballot box, often by their own constituents."

"There's a growing realisation that this is a long game. There's actually very little information out there, and very little substance to get into. It's hard to coalesce people around particular policy positions when the government has no policy to speak of. That's quite a challenge."

The insider's claims will sound the alarm to Brexiteers to push for the triggering Article 50 as quickly as possible, to quash an uprising from the defeated Remainers.

John Major has already come under fire for coming out of the woodwork to stick his oar in the Brexit debate, after telling a private function there was a "perfectly credible case" for a second referendum. He said this week going against the will of the people was not morally wrong because it was safeguarding against the "tyranny of the majority".

Tony Blair is sounding out a sensational return to mainstream politics, having held conversations with George Osborne and "many other people", in a bid to preserve Britain's EU membership.

Tim Farron is openly calling for a halt to the Brexit process and his predecessor as Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is also looking to retain close ties with the Brussels bloc.

But the Brexit camp got a boost from an unlikely source today as deputy Labour leader Tom Watson accused the Lib Dems of being "Brexit Deniers".

Mr Watson said "The Lib Dems are desperately, openly, shamelessly trying to recover some sort of electoral relevance by coming out as Brexit Deniers".

"I can see why it's attractive to Tim Farron, as the leader of a party on 8%, to want to be the party of the 48%. That can never be an option for a party like Labour, that wants to represent everyone. We are not in denial about Brexit."

"We will not attempt to obstruct the triggering of article 50."

These MPs, Civil Servants, and public figures all tried to cancel the referendum result of (so called) BREXIT despite the votes being counted and all legal paths were followed correctly. Predictably the voters for Yes (leave the political block that has become the EU) were branded "Racists", "Xenophobes" (and other racial slurs) as well as being labelled "Stupid", "Didn't know what they were voting for", "shouldn't have been allowed to vote", etc.

Below are some quotes from those that stand out as they most extreme insults, slurs, and basically childish outcry's from those on the opposite side.

The EU has always been the enemy of democracy. Run by unelected oligarchs, it despises the very concept of the popular will.

Its quasi-imperial arrogance and lack of accountability that were prime reasons for the decisive Leave vote by the British people in the June referendum. Yet ever since the Remoaners have been replicating the undemocratic impulses of the Brussels regime they worship.

The vote for Brexit was by far the largest for any cause in the entire history of the British politics, but more than five months later the pro-EU fanatics still refuse to accept it. All their efforts are devoted to undermining the legitimacy of the outcome.

So they demonise Leave voters as bigots or idiots, continually demand a second referendum, indulge in judicial obstructionism and spread propaganda that paints the Brexit process as either terrifyingly dangerous or impossibly complicated.

Far from feeling any shame over their undemocratic antics, the Remoaners are stepping up their anti-Brexit campaign. Last week that peevish prince of mediocrity John Major, whose last encounter with democracy led to the Tories' heaviest defeat in almost a century, took to the stage to argue that there is "a perfectly credible case" for a second referendum.

He then followed this up with the melodramatic statement that Brexit must not be decided "by the tyranny of the majority". This phrase was originally coined in 1788 by the American politician John Adams to describe his fears about the risks of a dictatorship under mob rule.

Major wanted to slur Brexit supporters as the nasty agents of totalitarianism but his charge was absurd. If any organisation is dictatorial and divisive it is the EU which was created in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty that he pushed through Parliament without any public vote.

In the elitists' guerrilla war against Brexit, Major was joined by Tony Blair, the man who gave Britain rampant immigration and the Iraq invasion. In an interview last week, Blair described EU withdrawal as "a serious mistake" which "can be stopped" if the people are given a full "cost benefit analysis".

So desperate is Blair to halt Brexit that he plans to set up a new organisation to promote continued EU membership. Already he has been talking about his scheme to figures like the former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and the rock celebrity Bob Geldof, who has described Brexit voters as "an army of stupidity".

Reportedly Blair has secured funding from pro-Remain businessman Richard Branson, while his key henchman Alastair Campbell was heard at a private dinner last week urging his guests Peter Mandelson and ex-MI6 Chief John Sawers to "fight back against Brexit".

If the Remain lobby cannot thwart Brexit, they are determined to keep Britain in the EU's single market as a fallback position. Yesterday it was revealed that the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, an assiduous promoter of anti-Brexit scare stories, has held meetings with business leaders to put the case for Britain's continued membership of the single market for at least two years after our formal EU withdrawal in 2019.

But that would mean open borders, free movement, the acceptance of Brussels jurisdiction and further contributions to EU coffers, exactly what the British people voted against in June. This drive to block the Referendum result shows a profound disdain for the electorate.

But just as offensive is the flight from economic reality. A central theme of the Remoaners' campaign is that the Brexit vote is "a catastrophe", to quote Blair again, which will inflict untold damage on our economy. But this bleak prediction keeps being confounded by events.

On Friday figures showed that business investment rose by 0.9 per cent in the three months to September, when economists had predicted a drop of 1 per cent. In recent days IBM, Amazon, Google and Facebook have all announced massive increases in their British operations.

"The UK has been a tremendous market for us. We see big opportunities here," declared Google announcing a £1billion investment in London. Then Jaguar Land Rover unveiled plans to expand its workforce by 10,000 and make one million vehicles-a-year in post-Brexit Britain.

The state of the economy is the direct opposite of the gloomy picture painted by the Remoaners. High-street sales are growing at their fastest rate for more than a year while exports are up 0.7 per cent.

Unemployment fell again this month, down to just 4.8 per cent, a far lower rate than most of Europe. Overall the economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the latest quarter, making a mockery of the grim predictions that by now the Brexit vote would have pushed Britain into recession.

Moreover, as the Autumn Statement highlighted, our public finances will soon receive a huge boost, worth around £10billion-a-year, from the end to the vast subsidies we now have to fork out for Brussels. Major said last week that the EU trading bloc is “the richest market mankind has ever seen”.

That was another of his absurd hyperboles. In truth the EU is a vast engine of debt, jobs destruction and dysfunction, limping from one crisis to another. No British patriot could possibly be a cheerleader for our membership of this failing, oppressive empire.

These MPs, Civil Servants, and public figures all tried to cancel the referendum result of (so called) BREXIT despite the votes being counted and all legal paths were followed correctly. Predictably the voters for Yes (leave the political block that has become the EU) were branded "Racists", "Xenophobes" (and other racial slurs) as well as being labelled "Stupid", "Didn't know what they were voting for", "shouldn't have been allowed to vote", etc.

Below are some quotes from those that stand out as they most extreme insults, slurs, and basically childish outcry's from those on the opposite side.

John Longworth, the former head of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said europhiles were being "disingenuous" with their claims that people did not understand quitting the EU would also mean leaving the single market. The influential business figure highlighted four unequivocal comments from the most senior campaigners on both sides of the argument which made it "absolutely clear" that would be the case.

His remarks came as new Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney sparked outrage by insisting there should be a second referendum because people did not know what they were voting for. The newly-installed Richmond Park representative had to be humiliatingly pulled from a car crash radio interview when she was quizzed about the claim and failed to answer even the most basic questions about the EU.

And firmly rebutting her claim today, Mr Longworth highlighted four crystal clear statements - two from Remainers David Cameron and George Osborne, and two from Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Michael Gove - confirming Brexit meant leaving the single market.

David Cameron, June 12 "The British public would be voting, if we Leave, to leave the EU and leave the Single Market."

George Osborne, June 8 "We'd be out of the Single Market, that’s the reality, Britain would be quitting, quitting the Single Market."

Michael Gove, May 8 "We should be outside the Single Market."

Nigel Farage, February 22 "I don't want to be part of the European Single Market, I want Britain to leave the European Union, be an independent country and trade with the world".

Mr Longworth, who was controversially ousted from his post at the BCC after declaring for Brexit, said Remoaners should now "accept the verdict of the British people".

"They were right. Leaving the Single Market is the only way we can take back control of our laws, our borders and our money."

"And any attempt by 'Remain' to now claim you didn't know what you were voting for is entirely disingenuous."

"We urge those who supported Remain not to seek to delay, obstruct or dilute the Brexit process – but to accept the verdict of the British people and embrace the huge opportunities on the horizon for a free and independent United Kingdom."

Young Girls were Thrown under the Bus at all Levels of Government

A report from an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) censured local authorities for failing to investigate networks sexually exploiting children. Lessons have not been learnt from prosecutions of 'grooming gangs' who 'tortured tens of thousands of children' throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Unless dark chapters are re-examined and complicit authorities of the past are punished, this will persist.

The review looked at six local authority areas not previously covered by previous investigations. It found Durham recorded sex between prepubescent girls and men in their twenties as 'consensual'. St Helens labelled children 'promiscuous'. Tower Hamlets described predators as 'boyfriends'. In the aftermath of abuse, help isn't offered. Ten-year-olds plied with narcotics who contract STIs were merely deemed 'at risk'.

There is widespread failure to record perpetrators' ethnicity. 'A misplaced sense of political correctness' was overwhelmingly given as an explanation. Considering Labour's desperate denials of Muslim (particularly Pakistani) over-representation in grooming (ignoring study after study), it's no surprise that five of the six councils criticised are Labour strongholds.

Places notorious for grooming such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Newcastle and Oxford have been staunchly Labour for decades.

The Jay Report found at least 1,400 children were molested in Rotherham between 1997- 2013. In 2006 a Conservative councillor requested a meeting with Roger Stone, the Rotherham Council Labour Leader, at which he expressed his constituents' worries about the widespread grooming of their children. He was told that the matters were being dealt with and asked not to raise the issue publicly. Jayne Senior, a former youth worker, broached the subject but was met with 'indifference and scorn'.

Because perpetrators were predominantly British-Pakistanis, several councillors believed addressing this could 'give oxygen' to racism. There were fears about the BNP which had weaponised the issue, winning two council seats in 2008. Addressing the problem head-on could have allowed Rotherham Labour to steal the Far-Right's Thunder, restoring trust in the mainstream. Instead, council workers remembered 'sweeping it under the carpet,' 'turning a blind eye' and 'keeping a lid on it.' One interviewee recalled, 'the people above just didn't want to know.'

Extreme PC Culture may explain Labour-run council conduct. But did this extend to police, who didn't seriously investigate grooming gangs for over a decade?

Between the ages of 11-16, Cassie Pike was trafficked around England and raped by over 100 men. West Yorkshire Police arrested her, not her abusers. When she was fed with A-class drugs and forced to have sex, police issued her a warning for possession. After getting into a groomer's car, Cassie was arrested for facilitating a child sex crime!

Thames Valley Police looked the other way for 16 years when up to 373 children were abused. They failed to spot a vulnerable girl who vanished from a children's home more than 100 times.

Following the death of Victoria Agogolia, a 15-year-old girl living in a care home run by Manchester City Council, who was injected with heroin by a 50-year-old Asian man, Greater Manchester Police finally took action. Operation Augusta was launched in February 2004 to tackle sexual exploitation of children in the city. The investigation identified at least 57 victims – mainly white girls aged between 12 to 16 and some 97 'persons of interest' across the Greater Manchester region. Intelligence suggests they were predominantly Asian men working in the restaurant industry. But senior officers deprived the Operation of resources, before shutting it down completely in July 2005. It led to seven men being warned, charged or convicted.

Did separate police forces independently come to the same conclusion about handling grooming gangs? Or were they all following the same instructions?

In 2018 Nazir Afzal, North West England's Chief Crown Prosecutor from 2011-2015, told the BBC "In 2008 the Home Office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying, as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe that they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it's not for you police officers to get involved. That's the landscape coming from the top-down in 2008. Rest assured, all agencies are going to listen to it."

Considering Labour were in power between 1997 and 2010, this circular could be the puzzle's missing piece. It would explain why cover-ups appeared co-ordinated. It would explain why the government received information about the scale of abuse in Rotherham in 2002 but did nothing. It would explain why police didn't orchestrate mass arrests of groomers until Labour left office.

If Afzal's allegation is true, much remains unclear. What record of the circular exists? Was it authored/approved by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? Was there other communication between government and local bodies? What was the role of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair? How could they not have been involved? These questions require police investigations.

Concealing crimes is arrestable under the Criminal Law Act 1967 'Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information.' It can carry two years imprisonment.

The High Court can issue a Serious Crime Prevention Order, applicable to anyone 'who has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence'. Facilitation here means 'to make easier'. This can require handing over information/documentation to police. Non-compliance can carry five years imprisonment.

It often takes a long time for institutions to change, particularly public sector bureaucracies. Local authorities will continue to fail on grooming gangs unless drastic action is taken to break with the past. Seeing former prime ministers and ministers in handcuffs would reaffirm equality before the law, deliver justice to victims and send a powerful message: Anyone who facilitates child abuse will be held accountable.