A series of Home Office proposals could ban protests during the London 2012 Olympic games. In reaction to the longevity and scale of recent Occupy London takeovers of public and private space at St Paul’s Cathedral, Finsbury Square and a former UBS bank, ministers are reported to be drafting legislation loosely based on part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – paying particular note to restricting tents and “sleeping equipment” for up to 90 days around exclusion zones. Police and “authorised officers” will be allowed to disperse protests quickly. Presumably with “reasonable force”.

Don’t be too shocked or too quick to compare this to Beijing 2008. Then, the Beijing Organising Committee banned all foreign visitors and non-Beijing-resident Chinese from attending, watching or applying for the right to demonstrate in authorised protest zones. Athens had protest zones in 2004. So did the Salt Lake City Winter Games in 2002.

The reasoning behind these restrictions is always to “preserve the festivity” of the Olympic experience. And security. Always security. In London’s case, security means Britain apparently waives its own rights and customs to allow America to oversee its own security operations, laying on 21,000 private security contractors and enforcing the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.

That allows police and “enforcement officers” the right of entry to private buildings suspected of contravening legislation on Olympic advertising. This includes: “advertising of a non-commercial nature” and “announcements or notices of any kind” paying particular attention to “the distribution or provision of documents or articles, the display or projection of words, images, lights or sounds, and things done with or in relation to material which has or may have purposes or uses other than as an advertisement”. In other words, protest.

Artist Peter Kennard, noted for overtly political art in a public context says: “The Secretary of State has regulations banning ‘advertising in the vicinity of the Olympics’. How big is a vicinity? Words fail me and because I make public art in the ‘vicinity’ of the Olympics it might be safer for me if both words and images continue to fail me until after the Olympics”.

A London swamped with police, security officers and spy drones might just dampen all the fun. Providing you sing along with the hymn sheet laid on by the Games’ sponsors and ignore the £9.3 billion price tag, you’ll be fine. But if you argue that a corporate agenda and exploitation is being sold under the auspices of uniting the world under sport and “generating jobs”, you might be in trouble.

The proposed legislation and the laws already in place only serve to secure the profits made by those with heavy financial stakes in the Olympic Games. These corporations read like an anti-capitalist wet dream: McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Dow, G4S, BP…. They may bring jobs to an area, but totally undermine the community-building that encourages grass roots businesses and the local relationships and interactions that stem from that.

It’s interesting to note that the Home Office sees protest as a threat. They’re not only worried about homegrown “domestic extremists” with a grudge against capitalism but international groups seeking to use the Olympics as a platform to air their grievances about authoritarian regimes around the world. Syria, China and Bahrain spring quickly to mind. So instead of giving an example of a functioning democracy where everyone gets a voice and can practise free speech, Britain hides dissent in an attic like it’s an invalid child.

The idea that ministers are considering bans on protest off the back of a global Occupy movement further legitimises the idea that these restrictions are directed at those who oppose one of the greatest and most murderous regimes of the world…capitalism.

So here we go. I hate the Olympics. Arrest me.

=====

This article was first published in the Index on Censorship. Reprinted with permission from the author [ie., me].

Better known as “Jonnie Marbles”, May-Bowles was also ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victim fine after pleading guilty to one count of common assault and another count of causing harassment, alarm or distress under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Of those six weeks, Jonnie will serve three. District Judge Daphne Wickham, handing down his sentence said Jonnie “attended those proceedings with only one intention, to disrupt them”. She had taken into account the “fear” Mr Murdoch must have felt when he did not know the contents of the pie and that the foam “made contact…its greater impact was stopped by the actions of others.”

So here’s the rub. For crimes of comedy, Jonnie Marbles is to spend three weeks in Wandsworth prison. His lawyer, Tim Greaves, called the sentence “excessive” and said they would launch an appeal but that nothing is likely to move on that until after Jonnie has served his time.

Jonnie’s sentence was handed down by the same judge who gave policeman Marcus Ballard 150 hours unpaid work for pushing a teenager through a shop window. She also gave James Allen QC a 12-month suspension for beating his wife over an uncooked dinner. She let off TSG Sergeant Delroy Smellie over hitting G20 protester Nicola Fisher across the face and whacking her in the legs with a baton.

As argued by Jonnie’s lawyer in court “slapstick and pie throwing is a recognised form of protest.” No injury was caused — nor was there any intent to cause it — and there was limited damage to the suit. Jonnie viewed the Select Committee proceedings as a “farce” and he “intended to express his feelings that…Murdoch should be held accountable” for allowing and engendering a culture where News of the World journalists hacking dead girls’ phones was considered acceptable practise.

It’s worth noting that Rupert Murdoch has not supported his prosecution but the Crown Prosecution Service decided to push on anyway. He was initially charged with Section 5 of the Public Order Act, a charge with a maximum penalty of £1000 commensurate with income. Jonnie’s not rich. Shortly before his first court appearance he was dished up the charge of common assault largely on the basis of a single witness statement made by Trinity Mirror journalist Rachael Bletchley. A statement that also noted that, when she noticed her husband was being pied, Wendi Deng knocked over a woman in a grey suit and launched a physical attack on Jonnie that left him with a cut to his nose.

Jonnie’s sentence joins a recent list of deterrent punishments handed down to protestors — mostly for violent disorder. But what seemed to annoy Justice Wickham the most was that Jonnie deigned disrupt the “dignity” of proceedings that were of “huge importance” and that he did so in the Palace of Westminster.

Oh. Like that time in 2004 when two Fathers 4 Justice protestors hit then-Prime Minister Tony Blair with condoms filled with purple powder thrown from the public gallery — in the middle of Prime Minister’s Questions. They were charged with disorderly behaviour. Or when Plane Stupid protester Leila Deen poured green custard over Lord Mandelson’s face over a proposed third runway at Heathrow. She was cautioned.

Whether you agree with Jonnie’s actions on 19 July or not, the message sent at Westminster Magistrates Court was clear. Don’t do it. If you want to exercise your right to protest and take your dissent beyond the tapping grumble of the internet, consider the consequences of your actions. Just like those who cut public services to boost the private sector and hack voicemails to sell newspapers.

===
This article was first published on the Index on Censorship, 03 August 2011.

Adam Curtis is a documentary filmmaker and academic who is best known for his use of videomontage to relay sociopolitical analyses of the modern age. His films include The Century of the Self and The Power of Nightmares. His latest project is a three-part BBC internet series called All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. Leah Borromeo is a journalist and filmmaker who quite likes Curtis but, unlike him, would never have the balls to carry a bag that featured pictures of Westmoreland terriers. The irony of writing for a magazine called Tank has not escaped her.

Leah Borromeo: How important is popular culture to your filmmaking?

Adam Curtis: I don’t actually use popular culture, I use popular-culture techniques. I once did a story about how radical psychotherapy theories of the 1960s became the basis for modern consumer capitalism. It was part of my series The Century of the Self, about the relationship between ideas of psychology and ideas of marketing and politics. I took radical encounter groups and showed how those ideas morphed through the 1970s until they became what we call “values and lifestyles marketing”.

I discovered this group of Californian nuns who were encouraged to go through group therapy. They ended up challenging each other – challenging authority. The convent split and you ended up with a bunch of radical lesbian nuns who are still there. It made me laugh. It illustrates a funny, touching truth about the ridiculousness of it all. It shows the shift from collectivism to individualism. Then I found footage in the BBC archive of the nuns before the therapy and suddenly I had a story!

LB: So you’re a storyteller?

AC: There are lots of wonderful things on the internet, but the one thing that can never, ever die is, “I want to tell you a story.”

In All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, I have a go at internet utopias. Internet utopians think we can make our own stories up, or have multiple endings in which you make the choice. That’s naïve. What you see on Twitter and Facebook is the modern equivalent of what, under Stalin’s time, was socialist realism.

LB: I’m not sure I understand – you mean instead of buxom fieldworkers and strapping steelworkers we now have lots of people communicating in 140-character thought bubbles?

AC: Twitter is a happy little universe where everything is incredibly innocent and comes from within you. Well, no it doesn’t! What shapes your feelings are the structures of power around you. The tubes down which your feelings go are built by large businesses – these businesses shape how you see the world. It’s not manipulation, it’s just the way the world works. The way we see the world is as much shaped by the structures of power around us as the feelings we have within us. What shapes those feelings is reflected by the ideology of our time: that there is nothing more sacrosanct than our inner feelings. These days, the idea of immersing yourself in something grander than yourself is alien.

LB: So there’s no chance of changing power structures?

AC: The most intelligent way to tell a story is to show how individuals play – like the radical lesbian nuns. Then you pull back and show the circumstances in which people find themselves and show the architecture of power. You should look at Tolstoy, because he writes detailed scenes about individuals and their feelings but, in the next chapter, pulls back and shows how those feelings are contexualised in the bigger picture. He shows how the two play against each other. He shows a battle from a character’s perspective and then shows it as being part of the mass of history. I find that very exciting. You’re only really going to write good stories on the internet or invent new ways of storytelling if you pull back and do a Tolstoy. What we need is a little less Wes Anderson and his miniaturist style, a little more Tolstoy.

LB: So what about the revolutions where we all join together thanks to the internet?

AC: I went back and looked at the revolutions where the internet rose up as a voice: Georgia, then the Ukraine, then Kyrgyzstan. Those revolutions have absolutely failed. The people in those countries are actually less free than they were in 2003. In Ukraine, for example, [Viktor] Yanukovych is back in power and dismantling the structure of democracy. Well done the internet!

The problem with the internet is that they think that just organising something will lead to revolution. You don’t create revolutions like that, you create revolutions by organising for ideologies and beliefs that people fight for.

LB: What are your politics?

AC: I don’t have politics. I’m completely modern. I have none.

LB: So power obsesses you?

AC: I grew up in an age where society got more complicated and power stopped flowing through Westminster politics, but moved instead through areas like science, psychology, consumerism. They all shape the way we think and feel about ourselves. All I’ve ever really wanted to do is pull back and show people how power flows through those things.

LB: If you don’t have a political agenda, why do you do what you do?

AC: Because I like telling stories. I like showing off that you can take boring, abstract things and make them larky and fun.

LB: And you turned to videomontage because?

AC: It’s fun. Trash. Pop. That’s all it is. It also means I don’t have to go and film things myself. It’s a good discipline because it’s all you’ve got. The way I work is that I know the area I’m working in and I know the stories I want to tell. I sit down with the material I’ve got and cut something I like and then think, “How can I use that?” And that product changes how I tell the story.

LB: Do power structures keep you in a job?

AC: Yeah. We live in an age where we’re encouraged to believe that the individual is the centre of the universe – “Where do you want to go to today?” is the great slogan of our time. You’re unaware of the powerful forces going on around you. I point that out to people. I don’t have an agenda, because I don’t think anyone has an agenda these days.

LB: Really? Even the student protests in the UK and the marchers against cuts?

AC: To be ruthless, what are they marching for? They’re marching to keep the world they’ve got there. It’s not a revolutionary idea about how to change the structure of power. What’s happening is a bureaucratic row about how you keep the diminished proceeds of a broken system better allocated. That has been the distinguishing feature of our politics since Tony Blair. It’s a managerial, bureaucratic politics that says, “This is the only system we have; there is no alternative. How do we manage it best?” The difference between the parties is their definition of best. It was a wonderful march, but it was a bureaucratic row.

LB: Were you on it?

AC: Yes.

LB: Does individualism bother you?

AC: Well, yes, it’s static. It sells the idea that “it’s just me”. You don’t change the world through “just me”. You can reorganise the world through “just me”, but not change it. We’re all librarians now, whether on Flickr, when you upload and tag your photos, or on Facebook. I find this narrowness depressing. Because I like ideas. I like ideas that inspire you and take you somewhere else.

LB: We haven’t really had many “ideas” of late though, have we?

AC: Good or bad, the last radical politicians you had were Thatcher and Reagan. What they did was tear down the middle-class elites who had grown up as a result of the state in post-war years. They allowed a powerfully aspirational class to break through. That class is perfectly happy now and they want everything to quiet down and be all right. Just like France in the 1830s. We had a big revolution, let’s settle down. Periods of conservativism are also periods of great hypocrisy. And out of great hypocrisy comes great art. I’m still waiting for the new Madame Bovary to come along.

LB: You wouldn’t think of coming up with those ideas yourself?

AC: That’s not a journalist’s job.

LB: A hundred years from now, how will we be viewed?

AC: Ayn Rand believed that there was nothing but the individual and reason. At the end of her life, a journalist asked if she was scared of death. She replied, “You don’t understand. I won’t die. The world will cease to exist.” What she meant by that was that the world is in your own head, your own creation. It will be said that this was an age that had no consolation beyond the death of its own people. We’re frightened of change because we fear our own death and that hampers political change. They will ask why these people are so frightened.

==

This interview was originally published in Tank Magazine’s Summer 2011 edition.

Peter Kennard is an artist and teacher who has been creating photomontages for nearly half a century. Dubbed the “master of the medium” by the critic John Berger, Kennard’s ‘Broken Missile’ image for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is still deployed in protests today. Journalist and filmmaker Leah Borromeo is a former deputy foreign editor at Sky News and has over a decade’s experience covering stories on the arts and social justice from Gaza to Haiti to Pakistan to Iran across print, television and radio. She also knows Peter rather well and refuses to take any shit from him.

LB: Tell me about your latest project.

PK: @earth is a story without words, a completely visual pocketbook of photomontage essays about the world as it is today. I’ve used montages I’ve made over the last forty years combined with new digital ones made with a young Lebanese artist Tarek Salhany. I was his tutor at the Byam Shaw School of Art. The book tries to communicate through pictures in a way that can be understood across the world – it’s in seven chapters dealing with issues like oil, Palestine, climate change, war, poverty…. I’ve always been concerned with making work that can be understood by a non-art audience, especially now when it is up to young people to try to confront all the shit that’s hitting the fan.

LB: You’ve always been seen as pretty cool by younger artists, designers and activists.

PK: Dunno about that. I’ve just tried to use my art to fight against war and poverty. I’ve been at it for forty-five years, and sadly a lot of the images I made against the Vietnam War are just as relevant today as they were then.

LB: If that’s the case, then hasn’t it all been a bit pointless? What real change do you think your art has had?

PK: You can’t measure the effect of art like you do selling tins of baked beans. I see my work as being allied to social and political movements fighting current power structures. On its own, the work doesn’t change anything, but being used as part of movements of resistance, it becomes a visual expression of the possibility of change.

LB: It doesn’t show change. There’s a distinct lack of hope in your imagery.

PK: No, you got that wrong! By trying to be as direct and honest about what’s going on around the world today, there is an implicit assumption that things have got to change. It’s no good showing the resolution of conflict by inventing happy images of rainbows or people bopping around Empire State of Mind on their mp3s.… I’m not selling my idea of utopia. I’m using montage to get people to think critically – montage does this by cutting together images that are usually separate in our commercial culture. It rips apart the smooth surface of capitalism to reveal the interconnections of powers thrust on us when we wake up every morning.

LB: You started as a painter. What drove you to montage? Do you still paint?

PK: I studied painting at the Slade in the sixties but as I got more politically involved I wanted to find a way of working that corresponded with my politics. Painting seemed too gallery-bound and is heavy with its own history. But photography, however much you pummeled tore scraped scratched spat on a photograph, still took you back to the reality photographed. As Susan Sontag says, a photograph is a trace of reality. So I was able to use the photograph as a canvas.

I still use paint in relation to photographs because there’s still a mystery to painting where the paint takes over. You can get a direct relationship between your hand and your emotions with paint. I’ve found ways of using paint with digital and photographic imagery that deepens the weight of the work.

LB: But you know sod all about how to work a computer – what’s your process?

PK: I can do emails! And I can listen to YouTube! I just can’t deal with PhotoShop because I’m used to having piles of messy paper, cutting it up with number 10 blades and sticking them together with cow gum. But I’m not against digital imagery, which is why I’ve worked on this book with Tarek and crafted a large number of digital montages together.

LB: Is @earth your magnum opus? A bit of a greatest hits compilation. Musicians usually think when they put out a greatest hits, they’ve had it.

PK: It’s mashing work from the past with new work to do what I’ve always been trying to do, which is create a visual language of opposition that is accessible. This book feels like the best way I’ve found to do that. It’s an affordable way to get visual images through to people who may not have access to it normally. It’s different to the internet in that it exists as a material object. It’s real.

LB: Accessible and affordable? It’s published by Tate and is only available to a limited audience in the developed world – those who can afford the cover price. I can’t see this reaching farmers in Malawi or council estates in Glasgow where people would rather buy food than a book of pictures of why they don’t have food.

PK: Well obviously you need a tenner going spare, so it’s availability is limited by economic reality. But if one kid on a Glasgow estate gets hold of it, others will see it and get an idea that you can make pictures that are critical of our condition. I get lots of emails from kids who’ve come across my work and seeing it has encouraged them to try and make art that is about their own situations. Or encourages them to become activists who try to change their situations. They are more likely to come across a book than go to a gallery.

LB: So you want to get your images ‘out there’ to a non-art audience. Apart from the book, how do you propose doing this?

PK: Well, I’ve always used every available method to get my work out. I put work on the street, put it on T-shirts, badges, posters….

LB: Merchandise….

PK: No! It’s not to make money for me. Social movements and NGOs use my images to make things they sell to fundraise. CND have been using my images for the last thirty years. We still have the same fucking missiles now as we had then, so the images against them are still needed. I’ve always made a living from teaching in art schools so I haven’t had to rely on my work selling for thousands to keep going. This has allowed me the freedom to make the work I want to make instead of work that makes money for the art machine.

LB: If there was any real social change, would you be out of a job?

PK: [Laughs] I don’t see it as a job. I don’t see it as a career. At the moment, there are enormous social movements for change kicking off all over the world. There is a great need for oppositional art and I hope my work can encourage young people to develop new forms of visual protest.

LB: What have your students’ reactions been to the work you do? Many art teachers cease to practise once they start teaching. You’re prolific.

PK: It’s been different at different times. Now, because of what’s going on in the world, students are interested in more political work. In the nineties, when most of the art world believed in the hype over YBAs, students were taken over by the idea of being multimillionaires and instant success. At that time, they looked on me as more of a dinosaur who believed in art as a moral issue.

But my work and techniques have been taken up by street artists around the world who are making very direct statements on the street.

LB: Where do you stand on the art v. aesthetic divide? Isn’t there a tendency for self-consciously political work to come across as propaganda and lose the ‘art’ element?

PK: It’s vital if you want to make political work to hold on to the idea that it is art you’re making and not propaganda. The criteria for the work is the same for any other art. I’ve always been concerned with the materiality of my work and experimented as much as any other artist. I make work where the medium and the means matter as much as the message. I want my work to be measured against any other art.

LB: Is there anything outside art and politics that drives you?

PK: I’ve often felt more connection to writers than artists. Writers such as Harold Pinter, John Berger, Naomi Klein. And historically, Walter Benjamin’s work has been a great inspiration. He, working alongside Bertholt Brecht, theorised the need for artists to use montage to tear through the seamless reality sold to us by the state, and think of themselves as material producers – so artists are art workers.

I’d like my work to be used like I use Benjamin’s – as a resource and reference point for political engagement. You can take the daily bombardment of images through advertising and the media and create an image that fights back.

Twenty-year-old Anastasiya Vinnikova sings the praises of her homeland with a Stalinist disco swagger. The audience nods with sycophantic gusto.

“You’re my passion, do it old-fashioned / When I was wearing a star, back in the USSR / Belorussia! Crazy and so fine….” Et cetera.

There’s a brilliant bit at the end where an all-male chorus chest-thumps in with the chutzpah of a military parade. You’d think Belarus was an isolationist throwback of a country that holds wistful memories of gulags and forced imprisonment. Oh. Wait….

As our friends at an otter-obsessed popular culture mailout have written: “how they are going to perform that bit with just a maximum of five backing people allowed on stage, we haven’t quite worked out. Then again, the Belarussian government enjoys locking up artists so much that there might only be this many English-speaking performers left in Minsk.”

Belarus is the last dictatorship in Europe. It ranks below Iran for press freedom and below Zimbabwe on human rights. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe called last December’s elections “seriously flawed”. On 19 December in Independence Square in Minsk, over 600 people were arrested in a post-election opposition rally. Over 30 prisoners are still kept in custody, denied access to legal representation and face up to 15 years in prison for “orchestrating mass disorder”.

So. Here are the lyrics to Belarus’s Eurovision Song Contest entry for 2011. Under the EBU rules, the winning country hosts the Song Contest the following year. Should Belarus win, all of Europe could be flocking to Minsk with “dangerous ideas”.

[For more information on Europe's last dictatorship, visit http://zoneofsilence.org/]

Belorussia!
Bay-bay-bay-baby [x3]

Baby I want you to know,
Soon we’ll be starting the show
Back in the history we’ll go.
Belorussia!

When I was wearing a star,
Back in the USSR,
I was as good as mama
Feel my passion.
CHORUS

Round and round we go
Born in
Belorussia!
USSR time!
Belorussia!
Crazy and so fine
Time is rushing
Everything’s crashing,
passing by.
Born in
Belorussia!

Belorussia!
USSR time!
Belorussia!
Got you on my mind!
You’re my passion, do it old-fashioned.
You and I!

Diamonds and treats of the West
Come check it out, be my guest.
You’re still remaining the best
Belorussia.

When everything will be gone,
Your name will shine like the sun.
You’re still remaining the one,
Good old-fashioned.

CHORUS

Although the premise for netroots was admirable [how to get from clicktivism to activism], I didn’t find the sessions or the crowd representative or challenging. There was an overwhelming acceptance of existing power structures [party-political government as opposed to the idea of exploring other means of living] and far too much SWP-like muesli-driven bickering [something not helped by including speakers that rarely challenged convention].

Although there was a strong presence from student occupations and anti-cuts groups, this event seemed like bandwagon-jumping by a left that’s been caught on the back foot by an organically-grown, social media based movement. The old left [event was held at the TUC] desperate to be seen as ‘doing something’. Then again, I’m always suspicious of anything that schedules in a ‘plenary’ or invites speakers that use the word ‘comrade’.

There’s one thing worse than Hampstead Labour – and that’s aspirant Hampstead Labour. There was an overwhelming feeling that people attended because they thought they ought to attend. A much more varied and representative event was held the night before at the University of London Union – the launch of The Equality Movement.

[edit: lordy...people actually read this thing....]

“I attended court today to offer my support for Julian Assange of Wikileaks on a point of principle.

“In the face of a concerted attempt to shut him down and after a decade since 9/11 that has been characterised by manipulation of the media by the authorities, the information released by Wikileaks is a refreshing glimpse into an increasingly opaque world.”

The Frontline Club was founded seven years ago to stand for independence and transparency.

Recent informal canvassing of many of our more than 1,500 members at the Frontline Club suggests almost all are supportive of our position.

I am suspicious of the personal charges that have been made against Mr Assange and hope that this will be properly resolved by the courts. Certainly no credible charges have been brought regarding the leaking of the information itself.

I can confirm that Mr Assange has spent much of the last several months working from our facilities at the Frontline Club. Earlier today I offered him an address for bail.

7pm. Tuesday 7 December. —

David Spameron?

The Coalition government is now spamming Britons for their credit card details.
Presumably the shortfall really is that bad….
Nice one, David Spameron.
[The following is from a mail found in my SPAM folder].

Rt Hon David Cameron MP 5 December 2010 20:50
Reply-To: fcaffairs@2g.cc

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE,
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM.

Our ref: ATM/13470/IDR
Your ref:…Date: 06/12/2010

IMMEDIATE PAYMENT NOTIFICATION

I am The Rt Hon David Cameron MP,Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury
and Minister for the Civil Service British Government. This letter is to
officially inform you that (ATM Card Number 7302 7168 0041 0640) has been
accredited with your favor. Your Personal Identification Number is 1090.The
VISA Card Value is £2,000,000.00(Two Million, Great British Pounds
Sterling).

This office will send to you an Visa/ATM CARD that you will use to withdraw
your funds in any ATM MACHINE CENTER or Visa card outlet in the world with a
maximum of £5000 GBP daily.Further more,You will be required to
re-confirm the
following information to enable;The Rt Hon William Hague MP First
Secretary of
State for British Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. begin in processing of
your VISA CARD.

(1)Full names: (2)Address: (3)Country: (4)Nationality: (5)Phone #: (6)Age:
(7)Occupation: (8) Post Codes

Rt Hon William Hague MP.
First Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Email; fcaffairs@2g.cc
Tel: +447407165696

TAKE NOTICE: That you are warned to stop further communications with any
other
person(s) or office(s) different from the staff of the State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs to avoid hitches in receiving your payment.

Regards,

Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister

Cheers to The Tech Eye for the mention.