maandag 20 januari 2014

Exclusive: ‘Police corruption cannot be eliminated’ admits head of special Met unit following Independent stories

Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron, head of the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Unit, told The Independentthe threat from organised crime groups infiltrating the force is “very challenging”. However, he denied the Yard still suffered from the “endemic police corruption” outlined in the leaked report from Operation Tiberius in 2002, extracts of which have been revealed by this newspaper.

The document disclosed that some of Britain’s most notorious crime syndicates were able to infiltrate the Met “at will”, leading to compromised murder investigations, leaks of intelligence and covert informants being identified.

In an interview to address the concerns raised by Operation Tiberius, Det Ch Supt Bonthron admitted there will “always be vulnerabilities when you have people in systems”, but claimed that Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met Commissioner, took corruption “very seriously”.

He said: “We work very closely with other agencies to help their operations, whether it’s a big HMRC job or whether it’s the CPS feeling they are vulnerable.”

Asked if there were a threat to those agencies, Mr Bonthron replied: “There is a threat to any law enforcement agency. You will never eliminate corruption. You can make it very difficult and put systems in place.

“I think the organisation has taken corruption seriously. Organised crime by its very nature is very challenging. Has corruption gone away entirely? I don’t think it has; you have always got vulnerabilities. Part of our role is to make sure the organisation is absolutely doing the best it can to be corruption-proof.”

Mr Bonthron has spent his entire 29-year police career on the streets of London, eventually rising up the ladder to take charge of the Met’s secretive anti-corruption command nine months ago.

One of the major criticisms levelled at the police is that they appear to turn a blind eye to corruption as the details of it are too embarrassing to be aired in open court. Mr Bonthron is quick to reject that assertion, pointing to the recent conviction of a detective chief inspector, who was jailed last year for offering to sell information to the News of the World. “We have had April Casburn and we’ve got other cases coming through on that, and I publish the outcome of our disciplinary findings on the internet for the public to read,” he said.

But those are completed prosecutions. The allegation is that many cases never even get that far. He replies: “If we have got something to go after criminally, we will go after it. It’s not about being embarrassed. Look at Operation Alice about Plebgate – that was a full-scale operation that involved taking thousands of statements and working it through.”

Earlier this month PC Keith Wallis pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office after he fabricated an email, claiming to be from a member of the public who witnessed the then-Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell insulting police officers during a row at the gates of Downing Street.

When The Independent points out that this inquiry was only launched after a Channel 4 investigation, Mr Bonthron shifts uncomfortably in his seat. “It was, but the initial incident was dealt with, and then it spiralled away from that,” he says. “We have had an individual who has pleaded guilty in court. That was one individual.”

He reveals the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards has 385 staff and spends £24m annually – around 0.7 per cent of the Met’s total £3.3bn budget. But what of Operation Tiberius’ findings that the Met suffered “endemic corruption” in 2002, and was wide open to organised crime syndicates? Is that still the case?

“Personally, from what I have seen, no,” he says. “I am not saying we are completely free but I think that, in terms of the way Met operates, there are lots of checks and balances in place… The organisation is more robust.”

Asked about suspected corrupt individuals named in the report, very few of whom have ever been prosecuted, Mr Bonthron replies: “Whatever action was taken back then was taken back then. A number of people went to court and were acquitted. But if you are going after them and you are not getting the evidence, the intelligence you want, then you can’t put them before a court.

“Historically, if you look globally at organised crime networks, they are a professional group. It’s their job… It’s about us getting into them and taking them apart.”

Tiberius also outlines in detail how corrupt former officers who understand the criminal justice system often leave the force for paid employment with organised crime syndicates, helping them avoid prosecution.

But Mr Bonthron says: “In the modern day and age you can research anything on the internet, watch TV shows. Some of these shows are very accurate and people will think, ‘I won’t do this and I won’t do that.’ The criminal justice system is much more open than it was, but there will always be vulnerabilities when you have people in systems.”

He adds that Sir Bernard has made corruption one of his key priorities at the Met and times have changed dramatically since the 1980s when police officers were allowed to retire on ill-health grounds rather than “face the music”. “There are regulations that we are bound by… It really depends on the circumstances. You can’t resign if you are suspended. If you get served a notice that you are under investigation, you can resign before you are suspended.”

When asked about some of the inexplicable features of the Met’s repeated investigations into the murder of Daniel Morgan, a private detective found in a south London car park with an axe embedded in his skull in 1987 amid claims he was about to blow the whistle on links between the Met and organised crime, Mr Bonthron is sensitive.

“We are not going to discuss Morgan, only because there is a Home Office, judge-led inquiry that is going to take place,” he says. “It is a significant case for the Met and due process is going to take place, and that is the most appropriate place for that evidence to be called and held to account… I do sympathise with the family and I understand their desire to find the truth, because they have lost a loved one… Everyone wants to know what happened.”

He is also keen to stress that the vast majority of Metropolitan Police staff find it deeply depressing when allegations of corruption emerge. He says that 99.9 per cent of this organisation “are honest, law-abiding individuals and find it abhorrent and are absolutely appalled … One officer, one member of staff, headline news … and it discredits the organisation,” he says.

zondag 19 januari 2014

‘Too hot’ report on police leaks to media was buried as Leveson Inquiry ignored Met’s bombshell intelligence report..

The classified document, dated April 2006, alleged that the officer was obtaining highly confidential information on decisions taken by Lord Blair when he was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and passing it on to the now defunct Sunday tabloid.

Robert Jay, the lead counsel to the Leveson Inquiry, who is now a judge, had stated that Scotland Yard did not provide him with a copy of the intelligence report until April 2012 – six weeks after it could have been raised publicly with Lord Blair in the hearings. Mr Jay did say, though, that he had been aware of the report’s existence earlier.

However, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday revealed that Mr Jay had been “informed of the existence of the document, its nature and the details of the intelligence” two months earlier, and weeks before Lord Blair, who is understood to have been keen to discuss the report’s implications with the then QC, took the stand.

A Yard source said: “We told them about the ... report and they said they didn’t want it. It was only when it was raised … that they then said we do want it and we gave it to them.”

On 16 April 2012, the existence of the suppressed report was first revealed by our stablemate The Independent, which reported on “a secret campaign from inside the highest ranks of the force to oust the former Commissioner Ian Blair”.

In a statement on the furore released last year, Mr Jay said: “The MPS first provided me with a copy of a police intelligence report on 23 April 2012, which was well after Lord Blair … had testified.”

Once the document was finally handed to the inquiry, Mr Jay said the Met claimed “public interest immunity” over it, which prevented Lord Justice Leveson from referring to it in public or considering it for the conclusions in his landmark report into inappropriate relationships between the press and the police.

MP Tom Watson

However, the new disclosures have raised questions over whether the inquiry actually wanted to probe the most controversial areas of the relationship between senior Met echelons and the Murdoch media empire.

Ian Hurst, a high-profile victim of computer hacking by the News of the World – whose evidence on this subject was also rejected by Lord Justice Leveson – said: “Brian Leveson has been playing silly little games since the opening day of his inquiry. It is clear some areas were too hot for him to handle, the whole thing was stage-managed and the public are still no clearer about what really went on between the Met and News International. The public deserve better.”

Tom Watson, the campaigning Labour MP, said: “It appears that the murky relationships between senior police officers and News of the World (NoTW) executives have still not been properly investigated. This should be looked into by a parliamentary select committee.”

The 2006 intelligence report, created by Scotland Yard’s anti-corruption command, said a key NoTW hacking suspect, who shall be called Mr Root for legal reasons, was aware of unauthorised disclosures from Lord Blair’s “inner sanctum” to the former senior officer.

Hacking victim Ian Hurst

However, the alleged breach in Lord Blair’s senior management team, which regularly discussed matters of national security, was never passed on to the Commissioner.

In an interview with The IoS, Det Ch Supt Alaric Bonthron, the current head of the Met’s anti-corruption command, was asked whether he thought his predecessors should have warned Lord Blair that the integrity of his top team was being pierced by a senior former police officer.

He replied: “I can’t account for what structures were in place at that time and who did what. The DPS [Directorate of Professional Standards] is a very different beast now. None of that command team are left at all in the organisation. I know now that we have systems in place and ... where corruption is in place we are held to account by the IPCC. ”

Lord Blair first learned of the report when a whistle-blower handed it to him in December 2011 at the height of the Leveson Inquiry.

When he discovered that Met anti- corruption officers had intelligence to suggest his senior team had been compromised six years earlier yet told him nothing about it, Lord Blair visited Scotland Yard’s HQ in Victoria.

He passed the report to detectives working on criminal investigations into corrupt police officers leaking sensitive information to the Murdoch empire and other newspapers.

Det Ch Supt Alaric Bonthron

Lord Blair, who led the Met between 2005 and 2008, asked his former colleagues to investigate the allegations, find out who knew about the breach and discover why he was not told.

It is understood that the Yard assured him the intelligence report, written by a named detective inside the Met’s powerful DPS, would be handed to Lord Justice Leveson to evaluate and consider for his report.

However, the former police chief was astonished when he was not questioned over the report’s implications during his time in the witness box in March 2012.

The senior former police officer, who shall be called “Zed” for legal reasons, has not been arrested by detectives investigating alleged leaks of information to journalists for payment. But other officers, including the assistant commissioner of City of London Police and a Met borough commander, have been seized by detectives investigating unauthorised disclosures to reporters – despite no money changing hands.

News that the Leveson Inquiry ignored key evidence raises serious questions over whether it delivered on the aims of David Cameron when he established the milestone judicial investigation in July 2011.

After setting up the inquiry in the wake of the Milly Dowler scandal, Mr Cameron told the Commons: “What this country has to confront is an episode that is frankly disgraceful, accusations of widespread law-breaking by parts of our press; alleged corruption by some police officers; a failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that’s been getting worse.”

Later, he added: “No one should be in any doubt of our intention to get to the bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the future.”

A Met spokesman said: “Throughout the Leveson Inquiry the MPS were scrupulous in disclosing to the inquiry everything that could be relevant to [its] deliberations.

“In February 2012, we informed the inquiry of the existence of the document, its nature and the details of the intelligence.

“In April, we were asked to provide a copy of that document, which we did. The MPS is content with the way this information has been handled and handed to the inquiry.”

A spokesman for Zed said: “These claims are utter nonsense and the implications are possibly defamatory.”

woensdag 15 januari 2014

Wat er echt op het grafschrift van Sharon zou moeten staan....

Wat er echt op het grafschrift van Sharon zou moeten staan

Er is een sprookje van de grote Jiddische schrijver Anski dat 'De Dibbuk' heet. Volgens de traditie is de Dibbuk de ziel van een overledene, die door zijn zonden niet van de wereld kan vertrekken en zich hecht aan een nog levend mens. Pas als al zijn misdaden hier op aarde zijn rechtgezet, kan de kwade ziel de tussenwereld tussen de doden en de levenden verlaten en eindelijk rust krijgen. De ziel van Ariel Sharon, de Israëlische ex-premier en militair die vrijdag na een coma van acht jaar op 85-jarige leeftijd overleed, zal nog lang op zijn rust moeten wachten.

Ariel Sharon werd in 1928 als Ariel Scheinermann geboren in de nederzetting Kfar Malal. Op veertienjarige leeftijd sloot hij zich aan bij de Haganah, de zionistische milities die vijf jaar later de kern zouden gaan vormen van het Israëlische leger. Als jonge onderofficier nam hij deel aan de oorlog waarin 700.000 Palestijnen van hun land werden verdreven, en de Israëlische staat werd gevestigd.

Sharon ontwikkelde zich al vroeg tot een zionistische hardliner en soldaat, in een land waarin hardliners en soldaten officieel of achter de schermen altijd de toon hebben gezet. Hij schrok er niet voor terug zijn meerderen te bekritiseren omdat die in zijn ogen niet meedogenloos genoeg waren geweest, en daardoor de kans op de vestiging van een groot Israël in heel historisch Palestina hadden laten schieten. De kritische biograaf Baruch Kimmerling stelt dat Sharon zich toen al zijn kenmerkende politieke stijl eigen maakte, doorspekt met beschuldigingen van lafheid en gebrek aan daadkracht aan het adres van de politieke en militaire top.

Minachting voor levens
Sharons leven bleef nauw verbonden met de geschiedenis van zijn staat en de permanente oorlog die zij voerde tegen de Palestijnen. Al vroeg in zijn carrière toonde hij de absolute minachting voor de levens van zijn tegenstanders die ervoor heeft gezorgd dat zijn loopbaan met lijken van Palestijnse burgerslachtoffers is bezaaid. Na de oorlog van 1948 bleven de grenzen tussen Israël en de omringende Arabische staten betwist. Over en weer vonden guerrilla-acties plaats waarbij slachtoffers vielen. Sommige acties waren bedoeld om de ligging van de grenzen te beïnvloeden, en andere waren simpelweg wraakacties. Israël ontwikkelde daarbij de ook later nog veel toegepaste filosofie dat vergeldingsacties gericht tegen de Arabische staten en hun inwoners gerechtvaardigd waren, omdat die de Palestijnse guerrilla's, of Fedayeen, in toom zouden moeten houden.

Om de krachtsverhoudingen blijvend te laten omslaan ten gunste van de nieuwe staat, richtte Israël de geheime Eenheid 101 op. Sharon kreeg het commando. Na kleinere aanvallen op Bedoeïenen en een vluchtelingenkamp ondernam Sharon op 15 oktober 1953 de actie die zijn naam definitief vestigde. Twee dagen eerder waren een Israëlische vrouw en twee kinderen omgekomen bij een actie van Fedayeen. Sharon sloeg genadeloos terug, en ging daarbij zelfs de orders van zijn generaals ver voorbij. In het Palestijnse dorp Qibiya, dat toen binnen het grondgebied van Jordanië lag, liet hij door zijn eenheid ongeveer 45 huizen opblazen met de bewoners er nog in. Hierbij kwamen 69 mannen, vrouwen en kinderen om.

Internationaal leidde de slachting in Qibiya tot grote ophef. De Israëlische premier Ben Goerion, de historische leider van de Arbeiderspartij, moest Sharon zelfs op het matje roepen. Tijdens het gesprek raakte hij echter zo onder de indruk van de daadkrachtige jonge officier dat hij Sharon in bescherming nam tegen zijn superieuren. De protectie van Ben Goerion hielp Sharons militaire carrière. Bovendien leerde Qibiya hem dat het in Israël altijd mogelijk is een relatief klein grensincident op te blazen tot een aanleiding voor verregaande militaire actie. Door een combinatie van het creëren van voldongen feiten en het bespelen van de Israëlische publieke opinie zijn het militaire oppercommando en de politiek relatief eenvoudig tot een hardere koers te dwingen.

In de politiek
Keer op keer in zijn loopbaan zou Sharon van deze lessen gebruik maken. Dankzij de protectie van Ben Goerion en de Arbeiderspartij, die tot in de jaren zeventig hegemonie hadden in de Israëlische politiek, kreeg hij een belangrijke militaire positie in de Zesdaagse Oorlog van 1967. Zijn relatie met zijn superieuren bleef echter problematisch, en rond de voor Israël veel slechter verlopen Jom Kipoeroorlog van 1973 begon Sharon aan een politieke carrière. Hij stelde zich al vroeg op als de voorvechter van de Joodse kolonisten, die van de Israëlische verovering van de Westelijke Jordaanoever en de Gazastrook van 1967 gebruik maakten om Palestijns gebied te koloniseren. Sharon, nooit te beroerd om zelf vuile handen te maken, gebruikte zijn parlementaire onschendbaarheid om eigenhandig nieuwe illegale nederzettingen op te richten.

Ondanks de vroegere bescherming van de Arbeiderspartij zou Sharon zijn belangrijkste politieke stappen zetten als medeoprichter van Likoed, een combinatie van partijen die na 1973 streefden naar een nog hardere koers tegenover de Palestijnen en de Arabische staten. Als minister van Defensie voor Likoed was Sharon in 1982 verantwoordelijk voor de misdaad die voor altijd aan zijn naam verbonden zal blijven, de massaslachting in de Palestijnse vluchtelingenkampen Sabra en Shatila.
De Palestijnse vluchtelingenkampen in Zuid-Libanon vormden een belangrijke uitvalsbasis voor Palestijnse verzetsgroepen. Dit was zowel uiterst rechtse christelijke fracties in Libanon als Israël een doorn in het oog. In juni 1982 viel Israël Libanon binnen, in nauwe samenwerking met christelijke milities. Sharon zelf zei over deze samenwerking:

'Wij wilden niet dat onder onze eigen soldaten slachtoffers zouden vallen bij straatgevechten, en de jacht op terroristen kon veel effectiever worden uitgevoerd door Arabisch sprekende Libanezen ... Libanese troepen werden gevraagd om samen met de IDF [het Israëlische leger] West-Beirut binnen te trekken. Het zou hun werk zijn om door te dringen in de wijken en de terroristen op te ruimen.'

Wat dit in praktijk betekende werd al snel duidelijk. Op 14 september van dat jaar werd de rechtse president van Libanon vermoord. Twee dagen later omsingelde het Israëlische leger Sabra en Shatila, en gaf toestemming aan extreem-rechtse Libanese milities om de kampen in te trekken. Van de donderdag tot de zondag trokken de militieleden van huis tot huis, en vermoordden met mitrailleurs en bijlen 3.500 Palestijnse bewoners. Een later onderzoek toonde aan dat het Israëlische leger de slachting moedwillig had laten gebeuren. Sharon moest aftreden als minister.

Tweede Intifada
Sharon verliet de politiek niet. In 2000 bracht hij onder zware bescherming van de Israëlische politie een provocerend bezoek aan de Al Aqsamoskee op de Tempelberg. De aanblik van deze hardliner die elke vorm van overleg met de Palestijnen afwees, openlijk verkondigde dat 'de Palestijnen al een staat hebben, namelijk Jordanië', en bovendien de verantwoordelijke voor Sabra en Shatila, die de voor moslims heiligste plek van Jeruzalem binnendrong, was de directe aanleiding voor het uitbreken van de Tweede Intifada. Sharon gebruikte de roep om repressie die hierop volgde om terug te komen in het centrum van de Israëlische politiek, en in 2001 werd hij premier.

Onder alle omstandigheden zou Sharon gekozen hebben voor een harde lijn, maar de aanslagen van 11 september van dat jaar stelden hem in staat de Israëlische onderdrukking van de Tweede Intifada te plaatsen in de context van Amerika's wereldwijde 'oorlog tegen het terrorisme'. Sharon deed zijn reputatie eer aan. In april 2002 liet hij het Israëlische leger het Palestijnse vluchtelingenkamp in Jenin binnentrekken en een slachting aanrichten. Hij begon de bouw van de Muur, die ruim 600 kilometer lang Israëls apartheid symboliseert. De zogenaamde 'Routekaart naar de Vrede' die hij in 2003 aanvaardde, bevatte nauwelijks betekenisvolle concessies aan de Palestijnen.

De New York Times herdacht Sharon met de kop 'The Israeli hawk who sought peace on his own terms'. Ook de voor Israël relatief progressieve Israëlische krant Haaretz en De Volkskrant presenteerden Sharon als een hardliner die aan het eind van zijn leven een draai richting vrede had gemaakt. De belangrijkste aanwijzing voor deze bewering vormt de gedwongen ontruiming door het Israëlische leger van nederzettingen rond Gaza in 2005. Sharons imago als de kampioen van de kolonisten liep daarbij in Israël een deuk op, maar met terugwerkende kracht is duidelijk hoe weinig deze ontruiming met serieuze stappen richting vrede te maken hadden. Veel van de kolonisten vertrokken van Gaza naar de Westelijke Jordaanoever, waar de nederzettingen mochten doorgroeien. En in Gaza zelf werd door de gedwongen evacuatie van Joodse kolonisten de weg geopend voor de complete blokkade en de bloedige bombardementen van 2009. Sharons ontruiming van de nederzettingen bleek vooral het schootsveld te hebben vrijgemaakt.

Sharon zelf zou het niet meer bewust meemaken. In januari 2006 raakte hij in een diepe coma, waaruit hij niet meer is ontwaakt. Maar de confrontatiepolitiek die hij zijn hele loopbaan lang heeft verfijnd is moeiteloos overgenomen door anderen. Ze is, als de Dibbuk in Anski's verhaal, vastgehecht aan de ziel van Israël zelf. De overlijdensberichten in De Volkskrant, Haaretz en de New York Times doen hun best om de witte plekken te vinden in Sharons pikzwarte leven. Maar wat ze ook schrijven, zijn echte grafschrift zal zijn: 'Hier rust het lichaam van een moordenaar. Zijn geest dwaalt rusteloos rond totdat al het onrecht dat hij heeft aangericht is rechtgezet.'

Pepijn Brand / Historicus, docent UvA / d.d. 13 januari 2014

---------------------------------------------------

maandag 13 januari 2014

Revealed : How gangs used the Freemasons to corrupt police

Operation Tiberius, written in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted officers” inside Scotland Yard, and concluded it was one of “the most difficult aspects of organised crime corruption to proof against”.

The report – marked “Secret” – found serving officers in East Ham east London who were members of the Freemasons attempted to find out which detectives were suspected of links to organised crime from other police sources who were also members of the society.

Famous for its secret handshakes, Freemasonry has long been suspected of having members who work in the criminal justice system – notably the judiciary and the police.

The political establishment and much of the media often dismiss such ideas as the work of conspiracy theorists.

However, Operation Tiberius is the second secret police report revealed by The Independent in the last six months to highlight the possible issue.

Project Riverside, a 2008 report on the rogue private investigations industry by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, also claimed criminals attempt to corrupt police officers through Freemason members in a bid to further their interests.

Concerns over the influence of Freemasons on the criminal justice system in 1998 led former Home Secretary Jack Straw to order that all police officers and judges should declare membership of the organisation.

However, ten of Britain’s 43 police forces refused to take part and the policy was dropped under threat of legal action. In England and Wales, the Grand Master of the Freemasons is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.

The United Grand Lodge of England declined to comment last night.

The Independent revealed last week that Operation Tiberius found that organised crime syndicates such as the Adams family and the gang led by David Hunt were able to infiltrate the Met “at will”.

Asked to comment on the Tiberius report, a spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “The Metropolitan Police Service will not tolerate any behaviour by our officers and staff which could damage the trust placed in police by the public.

“We are determined to pursue corruption in all its forms and with all possible vigour.”

Read more

Police failed to address Met's ‘endemic corruption’
UK’s key institutions infiltrated by criminals
Case studies: Operation Tiberius uncovers corruption in the Met

-------------------------------------------
My comment :

I simply say : P2 (Propaganda Due) and Gladio and one will discover, that the FM loges have been abused by dubious anti-democratic forces in the world before.

zondag 12 januari 2014

A decapitated Cosa Nostra is reorganising itself – over banquets

It sounds like a scene from Goodfellas or The Sopranos. But two years of video surveillance by Sicilian law enforcement agencies shows how the sons of jailed Cosa Nostra leaders are trying to reform "la Cupola" – the regular gathering of Mafia families from across Sicily to discuss business plans. It is not clear to what extent the weakened crime syndicate is benefiting, or whether the Mafia's young guns are just playing at being gangsters.

With Cosa Nostra weakened by a succession of arrests, the growth of rival crime syndicates and the lack of a boss of bosses of the stature of Bernardo Provenzano or Toto Riina, the clans are trying to regroup and strengthen the organisation – and enjoy themselves at the same time.

"It's no longer about small extortion rackets. The new Godfathers of Palermo, young and ambitious, need to see each other in order to reorganise Cosa Nostra, and for some time they've been organising meetings in the best restaurants in Palermo," said Salvo Palazzolo, in a report for La Repubblica. Carabinieri have filmed about 20 such gatherings in the past two years.

"Food is considered a measure of their power and prestige. Around the table there are declarations of war, pacts are made, alliances agreed upon and murders are decided," added the journalist Attilio Bolzoni.

Victims might even be among those feasting on the lobster. In 2011, at Palermo's swanky Villa Pensabene restaurant, the veteran mobster Giuseppe Calascibetta rolled up, arm in arm with young Cosa Nostra figures, for a Cupola feast. In September that year he was shot dead.

The Cupola was first mentioned during the judicial probe into the first Mafia war, the bloody conflict between Palermo families that saw 63 murders between 1961 and 1963.

But the Cupola or commission was not officially recognised by the courts until the maxi-trial in 1986-7 of Sicilian Mafia members. This then allowed the anti-Mafia prosecutor Giovanni Falcone to portray Cosa Nostra as a hierarchical organisation governed by the Cupola. As a result he was able to prosecute senior bosses for crimes committed by their underlings.

Many of the older figures in Cosa Nostra have since been jailed. After the bloody 1980s and 1990s, which culminated with bomb attacks and the murder of anti-Mafia magistrates, including Falcone, the crime syndicate also suffered a huge backlash.

Toto Riina, the violent head of the Mafia who orchestrated the brief war on the state, was captured in 1993. His successor as the boss of bosses, Bernardo Provenzano, sought to lower the crime syndicate's profile by concentrating on infiltrating state institutions and on creaming off money from public construction contracts.

Following Provenzano's capture in 2006 and the arrest of his successor Salvatore lo Piccolo a year later, the nearest Cosa Nostra currently has to a "boss of bosses" is Matteo Messina Denaro. But the net appears to be closing in on him, too.

Another expert on organised crime in Italy, Corrado de Rosa said: "I don't think the bosses who are sitting at the tables in Palermo in the past few months are just playing. Certainly they're not as powerful as they once were, and they like to show off, but especially now that Matteo Messina Denaro is being hunted by the state and his capture is getting closer, it is not surprising that they are seeking to reorganise themselves."

He added that with the uncertain political climate in Italy, it is to be expected that the clans of Cosa Nostra will seek to work together more closely.

The Mafia is thought to have made countless millions by selling votes to crooked politicians in Sicily.

The continued threat posed by Cosa Nostra was underlined in December when the Palermo magistrate Nino di Matteo had his protection stepped up after death threats from the imprisoned former "boss of bosses", Riina. One source suggested that explosives had been organised for an assassination attempt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My Comment :

"Toto Riina, the violent head of the Mafia who orchestrated the brief war on the state, was captured in 1993. His successor as the boss of bosses, Bernardo Provenzano, sought to lower the crime syndicate's profile by concentrating on infiltrating state institutions and on creaming off money from public construction contracts."

1. Do notice the striking resemblance between the described Italian Mafia policy of willfully infiltrating into the so-called upper-world and the UK mafia-policy - according to the (only recently leaked) Operation Tiberius (*) report - adopted by UK organised crime in general and at large.

2. So make no mistake : The Sicilian, Cosa Nostra, the Calabrian 'Ndragneta and the Napolitan Camorra have been role models for organised crime in other parts of the world.

3. Moreover : The three main Italian-originated Mafia syndicates de facto do represent multi-national commercial corporations with influential subsidiaries all over the world, including in the UK (and elsewhere in the EU).

4. However, not only are the Italian mafia clans active all over our planet, but so do the organised crime syndicates from Eastern Europe, Russia, South, Central and North America, the Middle East and Asia (Japan : Yakuza and Chine : Triades) and do not underestimate in this context, the rapidly increasing role of the motorbike gangs such as the internationally organised chapters from the Hells Angels and the Bandidos.

5. Given thereby, that many multi-nationally operating "traditional enterprises" - from the financial sector for example, which regularly seem to be organised into (mafia-like) cartels, in order to make huge illegal profits from purposely breaking the law - have been caught read handed on the wrong side of the law c.q. caught red handed, while aggressively lobbying for the removal of the boundaries of the law, and we can gradually become aware of an enormous world-wide operating apparatus (effort), that is collectively aiming for a systematical overtaking of our precious, democratically based, law-maintaining, judiciary and political institutions.

6. The rapidly disappearing (i.e. the mystification of the) distinctions between organised crime and "traditional commercial enterprises" and their growing power over our political democratic and judiciary institutions, had - by the way - more or less been officially announced by the declaration from Dwight D. Eisenhower about the ever-growing power (over our aforementioned, precious democratic institutions) of the political-industrial-military complex...

7. The political-industrial-military complex, that seemed to have had a large (if not decisive) influence on the decision making process surrounding the illegal military intervention into the country of Iraq and in the process seemed to have fundamentally undermined the integrity of our institutions and of the people that are employing these institutions.

8. If we - on top of that - do count the numerous machinations of the internationally organised Jewish and Christen-Zionist pro-Eretz-Israellobby, we seemed to able to safely conclude that our regular political and judiciary institutions seemed to be heavily outnumbered by a large number of actors, that are consciously and (sometime even collectively) seeking the erosion of our democratic societies.

9. In countries as Russia - which is widely accepted as trade-partners and partners in international organisations like the UN, the IMF and the IOC - we already do observe an example of a successfully accomplished coup d'état against common society by the mafia.

10. In Russia we for example do observe the - internationally, both feared and respected) extreme-radical right head of state (the Putin-Medvedev syndicate), almost overtly entertaining direct relations with internationally organised crime (as well as with the theocratic Russian Orthodox Church, that is rendering him his electorate).

11. So I do repeat : Make no mistake, because the young Italian Turks of the Sicilian mafia - the Italian mafia, who even for years had the relatively semi-official comfort of the assistance of an internationally recognized, acting head of state (who regularly adapted the national criminal law at will, any time, he privately felt the need for that : The Lex Berlusconi) and their criminal competitors all over the world, seem to be gradually but certainly undermining (corrupting) and taking over our civil and political societies.

(*) (Apart from the fact, that at this time, official FOIA requests have been initiated towards the UK government, to finally make public the Tiberius report, but) Are not we allowed to deliberate that the apparent decision from the successive UK governments, to hide the truth about the fundamental infiltration by organised crime of the most crucial official institution of the UK, in itself might considered to be a striking example of the disturbance in the balance of power between the democratic elected representatives (including the departments of the executive power) and (national and international) organised crime....

d.d. 12-01-2014 / 14:09 UK time

The corruption of Britain: UK’s key institutions infiltrated by criminals

Secret report shows how organised crime infiltrated judicial system as well as police with prison service and HM Revenue & Customs also compromised

20:44 UK tim

My first Blog