Cameron’s Nanny – A Tricky Appointment

King Alfred

BBC 2005

Tory leader Michael Howard has said Tony Blair leads a grubby government “low on integrity” as he attacked “lies” told in the David Blunkett saga.

In his inquiry, Sir Alan Budd describes a “chain of events” linking the ex-home secretary to the speeding up of a visa application by his ex-lover’s nanny.

Mr Howard said the controversy again showed the prime minister’s government was a “stranger to the truth”.

He asked: “How can you ever trust again a man that has deceived you so often?”

Telegraph 2014

Samantha Cameron’s role in Nepalese nanny’s passport

Samantha Cameron, the wife of the Prime Minister, was involved in the family’s foreign-born nanny securing British citizenship while she was working at 10 Downing Street

“Mr and Mrs Cameron did not write a letter supporting their nanny’s application for British citizenship. The normal application process was followed throughout. As is usual, Mrs Cameron was named on her application as her employer.”

There is no suggestion that the Camerons broke any rules over the application. But the limited response leaves open the possibility that Mr or Mrs Cameron could have been one of two referees on the application required by the Home Office.

The revelation may also be politically awkward for the Prime Minister given his party’s increasingly tough rhetoric on foreign workers and those who employ them.

James Brokenshire the immigration minister, this week appeared to criticise the “wealthy metropolitan elite” who use immigrants to provide “cheap labour”.

Such people had gained from immigration while “ordinary hardworking people” have suffered, the minister said.

She got a dolphin tattoo and was regularly seen playing pool with trip-hop artist Tricky in the Montpelier pub.

He once said: “I was robbing houses, robbing stores, selling weed by the time I was 15.

“But I was a good pool player, so we often played together. I’d show her a few tips and tricks, how to hit a few shots.”

Despite appearing to be an everyday student, Samantha never had any of the typical student money troubles.

Sam Cam had a lucky escape and went missing in New York on 911 luckily she eventually turned up safe and sound.

She bought her first home, in Kensington, West London, for s210,000 when she was still only 21. It is now worth s1.5million.

One pal described her as a “trustafarian” – a rich person who tries to “slum it”.

In 1992, Samantha was invited on a family holiday by former school friend Clare Cameron – David’s sister.

It was on that trip to Calabria in southern Italy where the then 21-year-old met the future Tory leader.

Cameron was 26 and already a highflier in Westminster, working for the Chancellor, Norman Lamont.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/samantha-cameron-the-truth-about-the-privileged-life-207933

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,

How shall we do this? This is what I’d like to suggest: let’s have a conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them, and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that interest you most.

Let’s begin.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we will continue. Don’t worry; I will try to answer as many questions as possible.

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.