HMS Consort - Suicide Missions to Order

TRAPPED IN DECEIT

Dr Lewis Moonie, in the letter he addressed to Tam Dalyell, M.P. has this to say, "All this is of course deeply disappointing. I must however refute Mr Leitch's suggestion that the report of the British Consul in 1991 was an attempt to mislead. This is quite simply not the case, and I am confident that the British officials have done their best to discover what had happened to the Yangtze Incident graves, and have reported the results accurately and conscientiously." My retort to Mr Moonies, comment is.
"Yes, like when Clement Attlee, in his statement to the House of Commons 26 April 1949 reported accurately and conscientiously!" That's what you can call fair retort.

I have produced the Prime Ministers letter of the 25th September 2000 for its terms therein just as I have produced Mr Moonie's, letter of 24th September 2002. Which is one day short of a two-year time lapse between both letters. If by the terms within Mr Moonie's, letter of 24th September 2002 when compared to the terms within the Prime Minister's letter of 25th September 2000 (Two Years Previous) he cannot see the discrepancies, how can he possibly be deemed fit to hold the office he holds as it was upon his request that the Naval Attaché and Air Attaché from the British Embassy in Beijing, assisted by the staff from the British Consulate General in Shanghai carried out a further on-site investigation aimed at identifying the fate of the Yangtze Incident graves.

Two points:
(1). The Consular Attaché among that delegation spoke to an old local man who remembered that there were graves in the Pan Yu cemetery, which is where Pan Yu Park is now, the old local man mentioned that during the Cultural Revolution, the original graveyard was destroyed and the local authorities used it to dispose of huge mounds of earth that had been dug out when making defence tunnels. He did not know if the graves had been moved or left in place.

(2) The Consular Attaché also contacted the Shanghai Funeral Administration seeking information about the graves. There it was confirmed that during the Cultural Revolution, head stones had been destroyed although none of the graves had been moved and that the graves were still in Pan Yu, Park under the small hill.

On page two of the letter being referred to at paragraph four it is stated "The Consular Attaché also contacted the foreigners tomb area in the grounds of Song Qing-Ling's Mausoleum where it had been previously been suggested that some of the remains of those killed during the Yangtze Incident may have been re-interred. No trace of the graves could be discovered. The British Consulate has been provided with the known details of those buried or reburied in this area and none of the names correspond with those known to have died in the Yangtze Incident."

The first paragraph on page two of the Prime Ministers Letter of 25th September 2000 and the third paragraph on page one of Moonie's letter dated 24th September 2002 when these are read for the terms within them how can Moonie, or any other lay such a claim as can be found in the last sentence of that paragraph within his letter "The findings are consistent with those of the Consul General in 1991." I don't think that's correct, as what I see stated in the report is that, (A Consular official inspected the "area" and confirmed the "site" was now occupied by a factory building dating from the 1960s or early 1970s).
In Dr Moonie's, letter to me dated 14th November, 2000 the first point in his letter is in the form of giving me a one paragraph lecture on the word devious. In the next paragraph he begins, "All official Admiralty documents relating to the Yangtze Incident are held by the Public Records Office at Kew and a list of those consulted is attached." Then Mr Moonie, continues, "That said, it was made perfectly clear by the then Prime Minister, Mr Clement Attlee, in his speech to the House of Commons on 26th April 1949 that far from being, as you suggest, "in danger of sparking a third World War", the ships involved were lawfully present."

That's the statement he was relying upon for me to accept as true and factual. The statement that conned, the House of Commons, and the British Nation. The same statement devised to prevent compensation to those dependents of the servicemen killed and others wounded.

Once again Dr Moonie's letter 14th November 2000. "All official Admiralty documents relating to the Yangtze Incident are held by the Public Records Office at Kew and a list of those consulted is attached." Well, attached here in this short story you have the reference too and of the documents he failed to attach, the ones he did not consult, the ones among other things of course, that point to Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, having lied to the House of Commons, in a public statement 26th April 1949.

When the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in his Statement within the House of Commons on 26 April 1949 stated, it has been repeatedly stated in this House that our policy has been governed by the Moscow Declaration of December 1945, in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union declared a policy of none-intervention in China's internal affairs, that was the guide lines and standards by which the House of Commons and this nation relied upon for truth on the important matter of conflict that the nation had became embroiled in.

The nations warships had been damaged service personnel had been killed and wounded, the nation justifiably looked to the Government for a truthful explanation and account of what caused and brought about such an incident at and in a time of peace while recovering from the second world war with all the sacrifices that were made and went into ending that war and bringing about peace.

In Attlee's statement it can be seen that he states, "H.M.S. Amethyst was proceeding on her lawful occasions and that there was no other properly constituted authority to whom His Majesty's Government were under an obligation to notify her movements even had thy been in a position to do so" that is what he then and others now in elected Government positions would hold as justifiable by being less than economical with the truth, a more precise and descriptive term is, dirty lying devious bastards.

When on the 9th of December 1947 it was announced to the House of Commons by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr Neville Bevin, of (Bevin boy Fame), that His Majesty's Government decided some months ago previous to the date 9th December 1948 that His Majesty's Ambassador and his Majesty's Consular Officers in China should remain at their posts, a matter that Attlee used in his statement for endorsement.

While using those facts he new that he was lying, being that it was within his knowledge and the knowledge of the Foreign Secretary that prior too and at the time of the Yangtze Incident 20th April 1949 stationed at Peking in Chinese Communist territory where the peace talks between the Communist Government of China and the Nationalist Government of China had been held and broke down was none other than Britain's senior Consular, an accepted and credited agent, of Chou en Lai.

The British Governments hopes of ingratiating favour with the Communist Government of China lay in that post and the hands of that senior British Consul in Peking, the advance of the C.C.P with its Peoples liberation Army had overcame the British Governments expatiations.
When the Chinese Communist Government took over Peking that Government was not hostile to Britain or the British Consulate there, and that is why on the 9th December 1948 the Foreign Secretary, Bevin, announced to the House of Commons that His Majesty's Government Ambassador and His Majesty's Consular Officers in China should remain at their posts.

The statement was the innuendo for Britain having war ships on the Yangtze River, war ships that from December 1948 while travelling to Nanking from Shanghai, or vice versa, had to be stood too, meaning guns armed manned and at the ready to reply to the fire power if any from guns on the North side of the Yangtze River, but only as a defensive action.

That precaution can only be seen as a reasonable precaution but there is an equation here that has to be taken into account as to why such a precaution was implemented and the equation comes into being by the fact that was known, the C.C.P. Peoples Liberation Army had reached the natural barrier of the Yangtze River and were massing on the North side of the river.

By the 9th of April 1949 the North Side of the Yangtze River was territory held by the Chinese Communists Government and on that date the C.C.P, put an interdict on the river that was applicable to all ships using the river the internal and international waters of China, the natural barrier between North and South in a war between the Chinese Communists Government in the North and the Nationalist Government in the South.

Although Britain's diplomatic relations in China was with the nationalists, Chinas Internal affairs at that time were in dispute between the two governing authorities within China the Chinese Communist Government and the Nationalist Government, the Moscow Declaration of December 1945 with its declared policy of none intervention in Chinas Internal affairs was being endorsed and invoked by the Chinese Communist Government when that Government announced its intention to interdict all ships movement on the Yangtze River which they had every right to do, warning all powers of the consequences of entering a war zone, war being the immanent factor of ending the two Constituted Governments exhortative dispute.

No where in Attlee's statement to the House of Commons dated 26th April 1949 is there any mention of the Chinese Communist Government having broadcast its intention to interdict the movement of all shipping on the Yangtze River 9th March 1949.
The reason for such a fact not being mentioned can be found within his statement where he Attlee is seen to be quoting the announcement made by the Foreign Secretary, Bevin on the 9th December 1948, "We are not alone in the decision to remain at Nanking. Other Powers represented there, with the exception of the Soviet Union, reached the same decision, and there has since been full consultation between the members of the Diplomatic Corps at Nanking."

The Chinese Communist Government seen through that diplomacy of the 9th December 1948 and put paid to it by interdicting the Yangtze River on 9th March 1949. The Australian Diplomatic Corps recognised and took cognisance. By having H.M.A.S. Shoal Haven stood down the Australians opted out of the Cold War following the Soviet Unions example in the first instance by not having a war ship on the Yangtze or at Nanking.

When that happened the Amethyst was selected and ordered to take the Shoal Havens place as we now know, we also now know according to Attlee, and his statement made to the House of Commons, that at the time of the incident on the Yangtze River, H.M.S. Amethyst was going about her lawful occasion. That being the case, by what we also know now, from December of 1948 all British war ships making passage on the Yangtze would during passage be stood too, in readiness to respond to artillery fire from Communist forces on the North of the river.

The photograph above provides an idea of what being "stood too" means. It is a photograph that was often displayed outside of cinemas to entice cinema goers into the cinemas to be entertained.

Well that particular photograph depicts a scene from the Yangtze Incident film; it depicts and portrays the young gunnery officer, the then Lieutenant Hett, standing in front of the single barrelled Boffer, manned and in the stood too position, behind the rating to the right and rear of the gun you can see the top part of the ships funnel, so what this tells you is that you are looking at a photograph of H.M.S. Amethyst Port Side on.

Below is a photograph taken of H.M.S. Amethyst when she arrived at Hong Kong after the ships escape from the Yangtze River, in this photograph it can be seen that the ship was shot up and the scars are visible. This photograph shows the Starboard side of the ship and I have encircled the Boffer gun sponson area in the centre of the photograph. To the left of the photo you can see the ships-funnel.

The first photo is the deceptive version of the Yangtze incident the propaganda version helping to delude and hide the truth, the second photo exposes the elusion created by the film in matters appertaining to the Yangtze Incident.

When Lieutenant Commander Kearns brought the ship H.M.S. Amethyst out of the Yangtze River he brought back the evidence of the wrongful acts and omissions of those responsible for sending the ship on a suicide mission in the first instance a ship that did not have the capacity for defensive action, such as responding to being fired upon, a war ship with no teeth and encircled on the photograph is the irrefutable photographic evidence of that fact, her orlikin or boffor guns were not on-board.

When Commander Kearn's wrote the forward to Lawrence Earl's book Yangtze Incident within the foreword the third paragraph begins, "This story deals only with H.M.S. Amethyst," that is fair comment by Kearn's which I accept as such believing that he read the material he was writing a foreword too or for.
That being the case I must quote a passage from that book Yangtze Incident at page 162 an admission made by Kearn's at a meeting with a Commander-in-Chief of the Peoples Liberation Army of China: Kearn's, "I recognise that Amethyst entered the Chinese national river and the Chinese Peoples Liberations Army frontier-zone without the especial permission of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army"

If we accept that Kearn's made that statement and I see no reason to doubt that he did, since he did after all sign the foreword to the book Yangtze Incident, having taken no steps to correct or deny his statement within the book and which I have quoted here, the significance of that statement is by fact time and circumstance that Prime Minister Attlee lied to the House of Commons and this nation on the 26th April 1949.

I have pointed out that on the 9th of March 1949 the Chinese Communist Government while holding the territory on the North bank of the Yangtze River broadcast their intention to interdict the to all ships making passage on the river, exerting that right and giving fair warning to all powers and their shipping using the river. In other words the Chinese Communist Government with its Peoples Liberation Army were drawing a circle around their territory showing and making known what the boundaries of the war zone was.

Attlee by his statement to the House of Commons on the 26th April 1949 while telling the House and this Nation that the Amethyst was proceeding on her lawful occasions.
Then there is Kearn's statement to the Commander-in-Chief of the Peoples Liberation Army, "I recognise that Amethyst entered the Chinese national river and the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army frontier-zone without the especial permission of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army" that is the statement of the man who the Royal Navy Consulate Attaché at Nanking before being ordered to take command of the Amethyst as she lay trapped on the Yangtze. As a nation we were fortunate in many ways as the passage of time has shown that the Chinese Communist Government with its Peoples Liberation Army was companionate.

On the 2nd May 1982 Britain was at war over disputed territory rights appertaining to the Falklands, on that date 2nd May 1982 the Belgrano an Argentina war ship in the company of two others while outside the 200 mile exclusion zone was sunk by a British submarine, the Belgrano had on board at that time a compliment of 1093 out of that compliment 323 lost their lives with the sinking of the Belgrano.

From that time argument up until recently has ensued as to the rights and wrongs of the Belgrano being torpedoed and sunk outside of that 200 miles exclusion zone. Because of documentaries and an interview with the Captain of the Belgrano who made it known that his intention and purpose being for being in the area, was to attack British ships or forces, that now being seized upon justifies the right of torpedoing and sinking the Belgrano outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone.
Britain does have the right just as other nations have the right to defend its territories, boundaries and zones in so doing or saying as an individual I do not think we have the right to extend our protective interest out with the prescribed territories, boundaries or zones. Up to the point of the Belgrano being sunk Britain was seen by the world to be defending its sovereign rights, by sinking the Belgrano outside of the 200 miles exclusion zone this caused controversy and Britain was seen and remain as aggressors.
At this present time of writing our nation the British nation was by Government decision lead into a war in Iraq daily it is being disputed, was this action that was taken by our Government legal or illegal it is a political issue haunting the British Prime Minister he has been accused of lying, it is an issue enshrouded by deceit and deception. It is an issue with that has caused enquires into suicide flowing from it, now we have words such as whistle blowing, treasonous acts, calls for a public enquiry into why as a nation we were committed to war in Iraq when such calls as the latter are raised it is an issue that is evaded, it is evaded by the Prime minister and others without providing reasons, reasons that by statute they fear.

When Prime Minister Clement Attlee, lied to the House of Commons on the 26th of April 1949 he was able to do so with confidence his position and that of others was protected by the official secretes act and the stipulation of time placed on the release of official documents. Now fifty odd years on from the time of the Yangtze Incident the official documentation applicable to that incident is allegedly freely available.

Through this short book I have made information available that was hither to unknown publicly about the Yangtze Incident the Suicide Mission that four Royal Navy ships were ordered into. For fifty odd years now Britain's dark secrets of wrongful acts and omissions that took us into conflict and to the brink of a third world war is available.

If the nation in calling out for a public inquiry into the Iraq war is going to be denied that by obstacles being put in the way of it by means of the officials secrets act then on consideration of the fact that we have ex-service personnel spread out through the length and breadth of this country who were involved in the Yangtze Incident let them call out via their respective Members of Parliament for a public inquiry into the Yangtze Incident there by setting a president for such.

To conclude; In 1947/48 one of the greatest Legal Statutes was brought into being by the labour party of that time it is known as the Crown Proceeding Act which removed the maxim Rex None Pecare Potest "The King Can Do No Wrong" by removing that maxim it removed the Crowns traditional immunity from liability bringing it on to a par with the its subjects, which means that in so far as liability for wrongful acts or omissions the Crown, its offices, Officers, Ministers and servants could and can be sued for those wrongful acts or omissions while purporting to perform their duties.

                                                                                      EPITAPH
                                                               Beneath the hill known as the High Land,
                                                               Within Pan Yu Park, Shanghai,
                                                               Lie twenty-three R.N. ratings that are but just a few,
                                                               Killed in a war like action that was not reported true,
                                                               Deceit amid deception led those poor souls to death,
                                                               Killed off by U.S. of A. munitions, was from this world they left,

                                                               Deprived of honour and dignity, their resting place unmarked,
                                                               They remain but one ships company, Grey Funnel line intact,
                                                               Oh yes, they are remembered, you can be sure of that.
                                                               So to you, who are defaulters, read into this, and that,
                                                               As time is fast approaching, the doffing of the Hat.

HOME