Britain, the state of politics

Agree with Jeremy Paxman. Modern day British politicians (few exceptions) are nothing but opportunist. They get into the job because they could not make it in any of the other professions. Hot air producers who have lost the confidence of the electorate. Very unfortunate.

nick venedi



nick venedi

Greek Turkish relationship

Well it all started to go wrong 3000 years ago when the mainland Greeks under King Agamemnon united to invade Troy and its from that point on that things have never been the same. Troy was of course part of the Hellenic world but they had rebelled and of course modern Turkey is not even 100 years old. Modern Turkey claims (wrongly) to be the continuation of the Ottoman Empire and the Greeks say they are the true Byzantines. In other words the psychology behind the conflict will never help them get on. The modern Turks are seen as from Hellenic origin who converted at some stage out of necessity all rather complex.

The reality is that they could both get all rather well but of course that would not suit the US and British arms industries who benefit from selling both lots of weapons of destruction. Very unfortunate.

nick venedi

Boris Johnson.. the mess..

Well what can be said other than this guy has a firm plan and it has nothing to do with saving the country. Its to do with making sure his name is remembered in history at the expense of all of us. He is simply a total cynic who thinks its all a joke.. very typical of a Gemini born on the 19 June... nightmare in Downing street..

nick venedi

Lambeth diaries after the Service plan

So the service plan was implemented over a 3 month period removing many employees from the service. But we were able to resist compulsory redundancies and ended up having just two in the IT department. We refused to accept that they could not be redeployed (found alternative jobs) so we started a long battle with the Council. I won't name the two who were put in that position but we were able to support them for a period of 3 months until we reached some sort of an agreement, so I learnt that you sometimes have to decide how long you can hold on and what compromises you need to make...


nick venedi

Cyprus invasion

So the US was in a chaotic situation in 1974 with the Watergate scandal and Kissinger could do what he wanted when he felt like it because Nixon was on the way out. D Ioannidis removed G Papadopoulos in 1973. He was a useless incompetent politician who believed that there was cheese on the moon and was easily used by Kissinger. Makarios was seen as a obstacle to dividing the island so Ioannides was given a guarantee by Kissinger that if he removed Makarios Turkey would not invade the island. He was of course a total and absolute idiot who should have been executed for treason.

The coup took place on July 15 1974 and Makarios (another armature politician) was removed. This gave an excuse to Ecevit for an invasion but he was clearly worried in case the Greek air force resisted on the island. He was given a guarantee by the war criminal Kissinger that Greece would not counter attack. So a version of the Aitchison plan promoted by the US since 1964 was enacted. Greek troops on the ground acted against the orders of Ioannides and put up some resistance but lost a great opportunity to stop the landing on 20 July. Ioannides still insisted that he was given a guarantee that Turkey would not use heavy force! It was all a plan which makes Ioannides, Arapakis and the other Junta criminals traitors. Britain was one of the 3 guarantor powers but Callaghan refused to comply with Britains obligation thus negating their responsibility.

So the blame here is with Ioannides who, through gross negligence and immense stupidity for trusting the Americans gave part of the island to the Turks. That makes him a total and absolute traitor not because he wanted the end result but because he was stupid and naive enough to trust the Americans...

nick venedi

Cyprus confict - who is responsible?

The setting up of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 was seen by both the USA and Britain as a mistake. Both powers using divide and rule methods wanted to see an end to this newly formed country. Britain was and still is obsessed with preserving the two bases they acquired on the island and the US did not want the Soviets to have any influence in the area. So the Atchison plan was promoted in 1963 which divided the island between the Greek and the Turkish minority. Worth noting that what we actually mean when referring to these two communities is the Christian and Muslim minorities. 80% Gerek or Christian and 20% Muslim or Turkish. The majority of Cypriots have the same genetic make up so the division on ethnic lines was an idea promoted to serve external interests.

So the US and Britain promoted the Atchison plan which they did not manage to implement. The opportunity arose when the CIA promoted military regime in Greece led by the superbly stupid and totally moronic Ioanides (which the Americans supported) made the mistake of trusting Kissinger and Sisko and went ahead with the coup in Cyprus against Makarios on July 15th 1974. Ioannides was given a guarantee by Kissinger that the Turks would not invade which of course they could not keep. The Turkish army invaded 5 days later a fact that proves that they were very well prepared and knew of the coup long before the 15th of July. So I don't believe that Ioannides was a traitor but simply a total bloody idiot with no experience in international relations. He put his trust in the USA and Britain and fell on his sword not realising that no one would give a toss about deceiving a dictator no matter what the consequences were!! What a total idiot! So a war crime was committed by Kissinger against a small country that did not matter to him. He should have been tried for his involvement but of course he never will be as small nations do not matter!!


nick venedi

Cyprus conflict - British involvement

Another myth relating the illegal invasion of Cyprus in July 1974 by the Turkish army is around Britains involvement. There is no way that the British government were not aware of Turkeys intention to invade. In fact they encouraged this. Papers released relating to discussions between Kissinger and James Callaghan prove this. In one extract James Callaghan tells Kissinger who would in today's standards be seen as a war criminal, that the Turks had some justification in taking the action they took. Callaghans only concern was the protection of the bases on the island.

Britain was one of the 3 powers guaranteeing the integrity of the republic and has an obligation to intervene but chose not to which in legal terms means they are in 'breach of contract' which could question the legitimacy of the 1960 agreement. This needs to be looked at today.

nick venedi