Talk:David James, Baron James of Blackheath

foundation X

On 1 Nov 2010 Lord James of Blackheath discussed a mysterious 'foundation X' that is offering billions of pounds to the UK. Not sure what to make of it but maybe it should be added http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/11/conspiracy-theories.html http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101101-0003.htm#10110215000101 194.36.2.103 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could this be the OITC (Office of International Treasury Control)? They're mentioned in connection to MG Rover in 2005 - and so is Lord James, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681369.stm. (James McNally)  (talkpage)  23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Foundation X

Rothschild, Rockefeller, Ford, Welcome foundation? The man sound mad, though the Rothschild family are well known for their penchant for mining companies, which could explain things...

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790. Jacob R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.59.254 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Per our standard policies on biographies of living persons, I am removing this section entirely. While I find it as interesting and amusing as anyone, it is not clear to me that it is encyclopedic. As written here, we cite only blogs. However, it appears that some initial press coverage is appearing today, for example: Lords stunned by Tory peer's IRA funding claim. So it is entirely possible that we will want or need to cover this. But please let's be cautious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's be precise about what he claimed

I just reverted an edit which claimed "Lord James has claimed to been involved with money laundering for the IRA and other terrorist organizations."

Let's please be very very careful here about what Lord James is actually claiming. ZDNet UK seems to so far be the only journalistic organization to have interviewed him after this speech, and they write: "James told ZDNet UK on Thursday that he had been brought into five companies between 1989 and 1997/98 at the direction of the Bank of England. James was to run the companies down, as they had been identified as conduits for IRA funds." Therefore despite how his speech makes it sound, he appears to be claiming that he engaged in some activity against the IRA on behalf of the Bank of England, helping to "run... companies down" who were conduits for IRA funds.

I just want us to be really careful here. James has said some fairly, um, astonishing things, but he does not appear to be claiming to have supported the IRA by laundering money for them. Even in the text of his original speech, he tells us not to call the police, since the Bank of England will vouch for him. You have to read that part of his speech in full context.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thus my addition to the page that he "claimed" to be involved with money laundering is accurate and relevant. If he were laundering billions for the IRA or implicated by being involved with dismantling the operation to launder the money, either way this is notable, but thanks for the additional clarification.

I've just been watching the video of the speech, found here:Youtube copy of Lord James' speech. From this, if you pay attention, you can see that while the speech as a whole isn't meant in a joking way, he does have a wry sense of humor and is clearly indicating that he was involved in some activity on behalf of the Bank of England to somehow deprive the IRA of conduits of funding, not that he was engaged in money laundering *for the benefit* of the IRA and other terrorist organizations. As odd as this whole matter seems at this point, we should be clear what he is saying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems someone has returned the Foundation X part. I agree that it should be included... It's notable, both for the Foundation X and the IRA money stuff (as Jimbo Wales says above, he didn't say he was a money launderer for the IRA, he was instead used to 'wash' seized IRA money, or to remove the money from IRA owned businesses), and it has been covered in a number of news papers (Independent, Financial Times, Guardian, Daily Mail). Currently, however, I think we could improve a few of the sources. Hansard is, of course, an excellent source, as are the news paper articles. Hopi Sen's original blog entry was republished in the Guardian, so I think that one is good. However, the Charles Stross blog, and Hopi Sen's 2nd blog entry might not do as sources, but they can be easily replaced (the information they present, is presented in numerous definitely reliable sources). Thoughts? Malbolge (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The only thing I would add is that while Hansard's is a perfectly fine source for exactly what he said it is not a proper source for the notability of what he said, nor the meaning of what he said, should that extend beyond some very basic interpretation of the plain language. Indeed, I still have some concerns about WP:UNDUE here - the man has a long and varied and accomplished career, and one slightly odd speech in the Lords doesn't strike me as all that important in the context of his entire career, despite being in WP:RECENT news coverage.

I think the longterm notability of this will be determined by a few things. First, does it emerge that he'd entirely lost the plot that day, a fashion that affects his career in the long term? Second, does it emerge that he was absolutely right, and that there is a benefactor interested in making very large loans/grants to get the economy going? Third, does more history emerge as to his role in banking and the IRA? Absent any of those things happening, I think history will be left, permanently, precisely as puzzled as we are today about what he was going on about. And in that case, it is unclear to me that this deserves much more than a single sentence (if that) in his biography.

What I mean is this: although I am not an expert on the history of speeches made in the House of Lords, I gather that a slightly odd speech made by (in Lord James' own words) a "maverick ageing old-codger peer" is not exactly rare.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks

According to Wikipedia policies, you are not to be "careful" about what Lord James said. You are supposed to paraphrase or otherwise quote the references that you are going to cite... You cannot make any conclusion or synthesis of the sources... What are you, some sort of analyst? Not only that, if this man's notoriety has surged because of the Foundation X speech, and people, like me, would not have even known who he was but for this speech, that makes it very relevant, indeed! 98.201.13.121 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the history of the world. Lord James Blackheath's foundation X speech should paraphrased as close to verbatim as possible, including all aspects of his speech such as when he explicitly says, "The biggest terrorist client I had was the IRA, and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more a billion pounds of their money." Come on Wikipedia. Wake Up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.107.160 (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Supergun : utter bilge - the Supergun affair was cracked because of Gerald Bull and the fact that MI6 had a board member on the company that were making the propellant - not that Jonathon Aitken remembers the meetings he was minuted as attending with the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.64.78 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this useful?

I am not quite sure what to make of this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There was vandalism

This was deleted: == $15 trillion transfer speech == He also gave a notable speech in the UK Parlament, House of Lords, on Thursday 16 February 2012, [and see the official transcript: ] seeking an official investigation about UK and US government/central reserve bank/intelligence security fraud of $15 trillion, an almost unbelievable sum of money, and yet he alleged to have all the original documentation on file to submit to the investigators. Curiously no mainstream news organization has reported or commentated on this speech, although the alternative news websites and blog-o-sphere are awash with speculations.

Later replaced with this: =="FED Fraud" speech== James gave another speech in the House of Lords on February 16, 2012, in which he claimed a massive 16 trillions fraud from US FED and ask for an official investigation (Hansard, transcription 16 Feb 2012, Column 1016, from 5.20 pm).

-188.238.208.58 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

References