What Might Have Happened

Press Internet Sundry Sources OFFice,

Harold Laski Towers,

Clare Market,

London.

31^st September, 2007.

Dear Mr. Demetrius O’Blimey,

I regret that a number of issues have been drawn to our attention relating to comments and other material that have been posted on a web site in your name.  To the best of our knowledge and belief we understand that you are both the writer and publisher from an analysis of the content and advice from a secure source.

There has been a formal complaint from HM Treasury regarding your item on Endogenous Growth Theory in the construction of Budgetary financial strategy under the heading “Dumping The Wrong Stuff In The Wrong Bog”. 

You will appreciate that the critical management basis for addressing the nation’s finances is a key area that is regarded as confidential to the whole process and is better that it should not be questioned publicly because of the effects of international markets. 

The Chancellor in particular has objected to your thesis that he is barmy, boozed or brain dead.  There is no evidence for this and it is an uninformed opinion that this Office regards as potentially actionable under the terms of the Act.

The Office of the Prime Minister has raised objections to your view on the deployment of British troops in Iraq under the heading “The Wrong Men In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time” and suggesting that they were sent there on the basis of false intelligence and the deliberate misleading of the public.

This Office considers that your periods of serving in an armoured formation, knowing leading Iragi’s in the 1960’s, and academic studies on the modern history of the Middle East are not sufficient to allow you to make public comments in this form of publication and we must ask that any other matter you intend to publish has to be submitted to this Office for formal clearance.

Additionally, the partner of our Prime Minister, a lady who is a distinguished member of the legal profession and key adviser in many areas objects to being referred to as a “Scouser”.  This is considered by the Office to be a serious invasion of privacy and additionally ethnically discriminatory. 

The facts that you were born in a Workhouse in Liverpool, have hundreds of relatives in that vicinity and could be very distantly related are not relevant.  Your item “It Takes One To Know One” has been withdrawn on the instructions of this Office.

There are a number of other complaints from companies engaged in the City of London and connected places to the effect that your claims of economic difficulties that will arise will be largely due to reckless trading, dishonesty, theft and fraud are wholly unjustifiable. 

This Office considers that these represent a flagrant and prejudiced attitude to a sector of the economy that is providing sustainable long term economic growth which will deliver rising prosperity and a secure future for us all.  Any further suggestions of wrong doing or deficient work in this sector are now forbidden under the terms of the Act.

Any breach of the requirements of this letter could lead to prosecution and possible imprisonment should a guilty verdict be found.  The specialist courts set up to deal with these cases on a confidential basis will make their judgement accordingly.

You will appreciate that it is our duty to protect the public and people from assaults on their confidence in the machinery of government and the valuable work of those engaged in the tasks of managing our futures.

Yours faithfully,

Signature unreadable.