Comment: Cameron should tell his Bilderberg chums to pay up

Watford Observer: Cameron should tell his Bilderberg chums to pay up Cameron should tell his Bilderberg chums to pay up

The Prime Minister and Chancellor were unconvincing last week. When pressed over why Hertfordshire’s taxpayers were being saddled with a £500,000 bill for policing the exclusive Bilderberg Conference last year, their response was essentially "lump it".

David Cameron said the force’s application failed to meet the Home Office criteria for assistance so it’ll have to pick up the tab for the policing an exclusive meeting, which, incidentally, both he and fellow millionaire Osborne attended.

Mr Osborne chipped in with the useful insight the police are there to keep order at public events.
But that might have just been him showing off his masterful grasp of the public sector.

The upshot is that a police force which has axed more than 200 officer jobs since 2010 and is planning further job losses, as well as flogging off police stations, to balance its books is shouldering an added financial burden for a private event attended by billionaires.

The argument about whether the money should come from Hertfordshire Constabulary or the Home Office budget is pointless. The matter should never have got to this point as the Bilderberg Group should have paid the whole cost.

The Bilderberg conference is not merely "an event". Its meetings are meant to be clandestine "off the record" affairs.

Since it was founded in the 1950s, Bilderberg has conducted its conferences in complete secrecy.

But in the internet age it has become a circus - as any furtive congregation of powerful politicians and plutocrats is rather noteworthy.

In recent years it has attracted growing numbers of protesters and more than 2,000 converged on Watford for the conference at The Grove Hotel last June.

The result was an extensive police operation which involved officers from forces across the country coming to Watford to manage the demonstration.

Bilderberg is not a public event and it provided no benefit to the people who are footing the bill for its security.

Last week, Mr Cameron said he was happy to look into the case of the Bilderberg policing costs.
Perhaps he could do one better and have a word with his fellow Bilderbergers to suggest that if they cannot meet the full cost of their conferences, they do not hold them in this country again.

n The release of the nomination lists has confirmed this week that the UK Independence Party is ramping up its efforts in the area.

The party will contest every ward in Watford for the first time this month.

On the other end of the spectrum, it showed candidates from the Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts (TUSAC) party will be standing in six seats across Watford.

This will be the party’s first significant foray into local elections in the town.

TUSAC stood in Oxhey and Central in last year’s county elections and mustered an unimpressive 1.6 per cent of the vote.

Yet even if the smaller parties do not make a huge impact in their own right, they could influence what happens in the more tightly contested electoral battles in the town.

The emergence of fringe parties on both ends of the political spectrum could make these elections the least predictable in a long while.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:46pm Fri 2 May 14

garston tony says...

As Wright points out this was not a public event, the public were not invited and the Bilderberg group i'm sure would have been happy to not have them there. But some public did want to turn up and it was they that needed policing, as such it makes more sense to say that as those directly responsible for the cost they (the public 'protesting') should bare the cost of their own actions.

What Wright and others are basically saying is that if you are going about your lawful business but someone else wants to disrupt you to the extent that the police have to get involved the innocent party should foot the bill and not the one causing trouble! Yeah, cause that makes sense.

You're entitled to your opinion but this is a sloppy wholly biased article, its quite clear that you're judgement is clouded by the fact those attending the meeting may on the whole have been well off. Whether you are wealthy or not you are entitled to the same protection under law, as a journalist you should be aware that.

The whole farcical opinion is compounded by the protesters themselves, none of whom had any actual proof for any of the many varied contradictory reasons they gave for being there. My personal favourites where the ones to do with alien master races!

Wright, if you want to do your job properly why not chase those that organised and stirred up the protest. After all it was they that directly led to this cost being incurred. Hows about that Yank who was responsible for much of the hype and who tried to get himself on the tv as often as he could? I'm sure he'd be able to afford the bill seeing as his presence was basically to promote his web site where amongst other things you can buy over priced tat sales of which are i believe allow him to leave a comfortable life style shall we say.
As Wright points out this was not a public event, the public were not invited and the Bilderberg group i'm sure would have been happy to not have them there. But some public did want to turn up and it was they that needed policing, as such it makes more sense to say that as those directly responsible for the cost they (the public 'protesting') should bare the cost of their own actions. What Wright and others are basically saying is that if you are going about your lawful business but someone else wants to disrupt you to the extent that the police have to get involved the innocent party should foot the bill and not the one causing trouble! Yeah, cause that makes sense. You're entitled to your opinion but this is a sloppy wholly biased article, its quite clear that you're judgement is clouded by the fact those attending the meeting may on the whole have been well off. Whether you are wealthy or not you are entitled to the same protection under law, as a journalist you should be aware that. The whole farcical opinion is compounded by the protesters themselves, none of whom had any actual proof for any of the many varied contradictory reasons they gave for being there. My personal favourites where the ones to do with alien master races! Wright, if you want to do your job properly why not chase those that organised and stirred up the protest. After all it was they that directly led to this cost being incurred. Hows about that Yank who was responsible for much of the hype and who tried to get himself on the tv as often as he could? I'm sure he'd be able to afford the bill seeing as his presence was basically to promote his web site where amongst other things you can buy over priced tat sales of which are i believe allow him to leave a comfortable life style shall we say. garston tony
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Fri 2 May 14

crazyfrog says...

Good article Mike well done! And very true too !
Good article Mike well done! And very true too ! crazyfrog
  • Score: 4

1:54pm Sat 3 May 14

LSC says...

I was going to comment but Tony covers pretty much everything I was going to say.
The Cabinet has private meetings in Westminster all the time, and they are heavily protected. Are you seriously suggesting each minister should pay personally for that protection?
Or is it a cornerstone of our civilised society that those in any potential danger get protection, courtesy of the State?

I have some sympathy with the argument that the cost should be shared by the whole country and not just Herts, but that isn't the case you are making.
I was going to comment but Tony covers pretty much everything I was going to say. The Cabinet has private meetings in Westminster all the time, and they are heavily protected. Are you seriously suggesting each minister should pay personally for that protection? Or is it a cornerstone of our civilised society that those in any potential danger get protection, courtesy of the State? I have some sympathy with the argument that the cost should be shared by the whole country and not just Herts, but that isn't the case you are making. LSC
  • Score: 2

3:07pm Sat 3 May 14

crazyfrog says...

Bilderberg is not a cabinet meeting that's in the interest of uk taxpayers it's about a select group of rich and or powerfull people getting together to enrich their owns life's probably at the detriment of ours, LSC or Tony will never be privy to such meetings as much as any other taxpayer reading this no matter how much you support their right to high security high price public financed security.
Bilderberg is not a cabinet meeting that's in the interest of uk taxpayers it's about a select group of rich and or powerfull people getting together to enrich their owns life's probably at the detriment of ours, LSC or Tony will never be privy to such meetings as much as any other taxpayer reading this no matter how much you support their right to high security high price public financed security. crazyfrog
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Sat 3 May 14

LSC says...

crazyfrog wrote:
Bilderberg is not a cabinet meeting that's in the interest of uk taxpayers it's about a select group of rich and or powerfull people getting together to enrich their owns life's probably at the detriment of ours, LSC or Tony will never be privy to such meetings as much as any other taxpayer reading this no matter how much you support their right to high security high price public financed security.
How do you know they were enriching their own lives? They might have been discussing the price of cheese for all I know.
True, I will never be privy to such meetings, but the International Red Cross don't invite me to theirs either, and Save the Children never send me minutes of their meetings.

If you have proof that these people are evil, dial 999 and report them. The recent downfall of a man as powerful as Max Clifford is proof that money and very great power and influence is no defence when the truth is out there.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: Bilderberg is not a cabinet meeting that's in the interest of uk taxpayers it's about a select group of rich and or powerfull people getting together to enrich their owns life's probably at the detriment of ours, LSC or Tony will never be privy to such meetings as much as any other taxpayer reading this no matter how much you support their right to high security high price public financed security.[/p][/quote]How do you know they were enriching their own lives? They might have been discussing the price of cheese for all I know. True, I will never be privy to such meetings, but the International Red Cross don't invite me to theirs either, and Save the Children never send me minutes of their meetings. If you have proof that these people are evil, dial 999 and report them. The recent downfall of a man as powerful as Max Clifford is proof that money and very great power and influence is no defence when the truth is out there. LSC
  • Score: 2

5:30pm Sat 3 May 14

LSC says...

Look at it this way. I HATE the BNP with a passion, but I believe they have a right to their opinions. If they held a meeting in Watford, there is a good chance they would need security and probably lots of it.
Being the knuckle-draggers that they are, I doubt many could afford to pay the police cost because I doubt many of them could hold down a job for 2 minutes.

But the meeting is going ahead, as is their right under law, and they can't afford policing. So what do you do, not police it? Allow potential carnage when the opposition turns up?
Of course not.

You might find the Bilderburg group every bit as odious as I find the BNP. But in this country they have the same rights and long may that continue.
Look at it this way. I HATE the BNP with a passion, but I believe they have a right to their opinions. If they held a meeting in Watford, there is a good chance they would need security and probably lots of it. Being the knuckle-draggers that they are, I doubt many could afford to pay the police cost because I doubt many of them could hold down a job for 2 minutes. But the meeting is going ahead, as is their right under law, and they can't afford policing. So what do you do, not police it? Allow potential carnage when the opposition turns up? Of course not. You might find the Bilderburg group every bit as odious as I find the BNP. But in this country they have the same rights and long may that continue. LSC
  • Score: 5

10:13am Tue 6 May 14

garston tony says...

Couldnt agree more LSC, there are plenty of examples out there of events that end up costing the police force money. The only reason there is a clamour about this event is that the people involved have money, but why should having money mean you get treated differently? Its just reverse snobbishness
Couldnt agree more LSC, there are plenty of examples out there of events that end up costing the police force money. The only reason there is a clamour about this event is that the people involved have money, but why should having money mean you get treated differently? Its just reverse snobbishness garston tony
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree