Alison Chabloz counters vicious attacks launched by Peter Rushton

Alison Chabloz counters vicious attacks launched by Peter Rushton

In response to my emotionally-challenged in-house critics and their demands for my SURGICAL REMOVAL from movement circles

“Look at your own lives, everyone of you: imagine that suddenly you have people against you saying 'you are a liar' or whatever ... and they are unable to find anything wrong in your life.”

~ Robert Faurisson, Shepperton, October 20^th 2018.

Thanks to TEAM RIVAROL for kindly inviting me to respond to the article signed Peter RUSHTON, translated on p. 2 of RIVAROL n° 3365, Le révisionnisme pourrait devenir un délit en GrandeBretagne : Vincent Reynouard est en grand danger! [lit. Revisionism risks being criminalised in

Britain: Vincent Reynouard is in grave danger!]. My gratitude in particular goes to RIVAROL editor Mr. Jérôme Bourbon for having redacted Rushton's ad hominem and personal abuse present in the original English publication.

Indeed, the English version of Rushton's most recent commentary [Chabloz succeeds in criminalising

'Holocaust denial'] is the latest in an aggravating series of four defamatory articles published by

Heritage & Destiny [H&D], beginning November 26^th 2018 with an astonishing statement¹ , signed by

Rushton, Michele Renouf, Richard Edmonds and “approved” by Guillaume Nichols, Joe Fallisi and Fred Leuchter, accusing me of being a “traitor and a saboteur”. Without a shred of evidence, the abovenamed persons accuse me, in public, of having informed Left wing “charity” Hope Not Hate of the October 20^th conference in Shepperton near London and, indirectly, for being ultimately responsible for the death of Professor Robert Faurisson the following day.

In contrast to RIVAROL offering a right to reply, the media strategy of Mr. Rushton and H&D as far as I am concerned has been to carry on smearing regardless.

Three further H&D articles - as well as French and English versions of a YouTube video uploaded by Vincent Reynouard following my recent re-trial at Southwark Crown Court – strongly suggest that my detractors not only wish to see me isolated from revisionist-nationalist ranks here in Britain, but that they are attempting to sever links I worked hard to foster with French and international revisionistnationalist colleagues. Astonishingly, in both the recent English H&D article and Reynouard's video, Rushton insists that I have never been part of the revisionist-movement and that my supporters would be wise to immediately withdraw their support, including their financial donations.

More worryingly still, Rushton's defamatory publications have now led to threats of violence against my person. First posted on the UK Vanguard News Network nationalist forum, these comments state that there is now apparently a £10,000 bounty on my head, along with a threat of acid being thrown in my face if I dare to attend any future nationalist-revisionist events. (These violent threats were originally drawn to my attention when they were copied and pasted to the comments section of Reynouard's recent YouTube video of his “interview” with Rushton).

Several forwarded emails originally penned by Rushton provide further clear evidence of this deliberate and ongoing smear campaign. A campaign of defamation not only against me personally, but perhaps also intended to destabilise and undermine the revisionist cause itself.

On November 26 and December 2 2018, Peter Rushton sent two emails to an English compatriot. In the first, he states, adding his own emphasis:

“Chabloz had to be denounced and had to be surgically removed from Movement circles... I know Chabloz lied about the 'Agence Bocage' article for which she blamed Michele Renouf at the start of the whole business and I know why she lied. I spoke face to face with the actual publisher of that piece last week.”

Vincent Reynouard confirms that a conversation between him and Rushton did indeed take place after the Shepperton event. However, contrary to Rushton's and others' claims, Reynouard strongly denies any involvement with the Agence Bocage article published just after my original trial began in January

2018 ². I stand by my original claim that the Agence Bocage hatchet job was instigated by Michele Renouf under the influence of her strategic thinker, Peter Rushton. Indeed, both the original and translated versions of Rushton's latest article echo the opinions expressed by the “anonymous” author of the Agence Bocage piece. Likewise, the mysterious author's fears over Reynouard's eventual extradition and imprisonment are reinterated in one H&D defamatory piece authored by veteran Nationalist Richard Edmonds ³. January 2018, following publication by Agence Bocage, Edmonds circulated the article via email (but not to me), gossiping that I had been “bocaged” and that Reynouard and I had fallen out “big time” - at the time, news to me.  In short, if Vincent Reynouard did not publish this article, then perhaps the real author/editor now needs to step forward.

In his second email of December 2nd, Rushton continues:

“Our investigation of what went wrong at Shepperton is not part of a political party or a student debating society: as such I do not respond to demands for 'proof', especially not Ms Chabloz's demands - I carry out an investigation only as I see fit. Since this was my event that was disgracefully betrayed, and especially considering Prof. Faurisson 's death weekend, I will be able to provide judge, jury and executioner.”

Thus, from judge, jury and executioner, to today's price tag of £10,000 on my head and the threat of an acid attack – result of an investigation carried out as seen fit by Mr. Rushton. Judging by Mr. Rushton's chequered past within British nationalism – including being banned from the British National Party in 2002 ⁴ – one cannot help but note the similarity of Rushton's investigatory approach with that of the East German Communist tribunal in John Le Carré's Cold War espionage novel, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. Rushton's wording is an almost exact repetition of the Communist Party judge: evidence against double agent Hans-Dieter Mundt will be heard as the tribunal sees fit ⁵. As shown by the persecution and prosecution of revisionists, Soviet style investigation tactics are still very much in operation throughout the “free” west  and especially in Europe. However, deployment of such manifestly disloyal methods within the truth-seeking revisionist-nationalist community itself can only be described as exceedingly worrying, if not downright sinister.

As for last month's ruling, it seems that, according to the venomous Mr. Rushton and his handful of emotionally-challenged allies, it is wiser to simply shut up and do as we're told by the opposition rather than stand in the arena and fight back. Why no condemnation from Rushton & Co of the enemies of the free speech? Why no support for artistic expression? Why no demands for open and honest debate on matters “Holocaust”? Does Rushton's approach include similar condemnation of Dieudonné vs France, ECHR N° 25239/13 – cited during my trial by the prosecutor and in the court's ruling?

Since proceedings began, Rushton and Renouf have done everything in their power to undermine and discredit my contribution to the cause: censorship of my songs in Vichy 2017 at Robert Faurisson's 88^th birthday celebration; approval of Agence Bocage's 2018 hatchet job; childishly grotesque demands that I am to be excluded from nationalist-revisionist conferences; accusations without proof of betrayal and sabotage; lies and ritual defamation including holding me responsible for the death of Robert Faurisson; all indicating a course of action intended to bring about – in Rushton's most ungracious terms –  my “surgical removal from movement circles”. Little wonder that the highly respected late German nationalist, Manfred Roeder, described those who indulge in such dishonourable behaviour as “rogues and cutthroats” ⁶.

This “legal precedent” (true only in the most marginal sense) of which Rushton, Renouf and Reynouard complain - well, from my point of view, it is Rushton and Renouf themselves who are in part responsible because there was no need for my case to go to court in the first place. Uploaded to YouTube whilst I was in Switzerland, the video of my song (((Survivors))) was outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. As Rushton admits in RIVAROL and H&D, he “personally felt my trial was winnable” - to the extent that he then even proposed himself as “expert” defence witness as part of my legal team. 

Ultimately, is Peter Rushton to be congratulated? There are many who believe that my trial has brought the revisionist cause well and truly under the spotlight here in Britain. With regard to the sensationalist and absurd statement that I would be responsible for the criminalization of 'Holocaust denial', perhaps after examining his own role in this case, Rushton would do well to spit his venom at my accusers and their puppets, rather than simply parroting their rhetoric whilst seeking to undermine one of his compatriots.

My case will now continue in the Divisional Court to challenge the legal points of "sending" = downloading / sharing links on a "public" electronic network.

Finally, I cannot conclude without expressing my deepest gratitude to my solicitor Kevin LowryMullins and my barrister Adrian Davies for remaining loyal and steadfast over the past two years.

Bravo and thank you to those who truly support all revisionists, the revisionist cause and the right to freedom of expression.

Alison Chabloz, February 28^th 2018.

alisonchabloz.com

^1.  The sabotage of Prof. Robert Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting: informants exposed; Heritage and Destiny, Preston, UK; 2018.

^2.  Affaire Chabloz: stragtégie problématique et danger réel; Agence Bocage, Green Lanes, London, 2018.

^3.  Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door; Heritage and Destiny, Preston, UK; 2019.

^4.  Considerations For Proscription – A BNP Booklet; British National Party, 2002.

⁵.The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, p. 180; John Le Carré, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., London, 1963.

^6. Deutsche Bürgerinitiative newsletter n° 11/12, p. 3; Schwarzenborn, Germany, 2013.

National Action: The Truth will shock you

NATIONAL ACTION: THE TRUTH WILL SHOCK YOU

In the early days, Jack Renshaw was like any other guy of his age. He had a healthy interest in politics and he had a career to show for it. He like many others joined the so called Far Right because he believed in the Nationalist spirit. He like many others was feeling increasingly angry against the so called political establishment that he and others saw as giving preference to outsiders in spite of very pressing needs of Britons that were not being met. What he heard from speakers like Richard Edmonds from National Front and others convinced him that he was on the right path. At the time, what was defined as British Nationalism was very much linked to Racial Politics and World World Two. There was nothing about violence but there were very well defined boundaries in terms of political activism, of the notion of us and the others. The preferred way was political and everything was about winning elections.

Jack Renshaw was made by Hope Not Hate, the UAF, the BBC and also by the Labour Party and its para-political branches. Everywhere the British National Party went, its supporters were called Nazi, Fascist and Racist to the point that instead of being offended by such labelling many got to the conclusion that whatever they did they would still be called Nazi, Fascist and Racist. Things got to a point when the stereotype created by those who were against the British National Party created a public image that attracted individuals that admired the Dritte Reich and its policies. 

British Security Services infiltrated the British National Party pretending to be genuine supporters and acted as agent provocateurs promoting loose talk. British Security agents went around inciting people to talk about the Dritte Reich, Adolf Hitler and making salutes while pretending to be British National Party Members. The Police had no interest in protecting the public. All they wanted was to compromise the British National Party for political reasons reinforcing existing stereotypes. 

British Security Services have for a very long time being involved in criminal activities and in this case it was about criminal activities with a political purpose. We tracked down British agents when they were not pretending to be political activists i.e. some of them were working at the Home Office in Croydon when the Croydon Branch of the British National Party was rising.

British agents had no limits. They identified vulnerable people - including those with health issues - and used them to spy on the British National Party and to create internal dissent. This combined with internal differences were the seeds of what happened years later despite big electoral successes.

The planned agenda was to bring down the British National Party and attacking individuals was a way to do it. If you were a British National Party member you were banned from certain jobs in the state sector. Much more than that, if you were a known member of the British National Party you would not be employed or you would lose your job also in the private sector. This continues to apply even when the British National Party is not even one per cent of what it used to be in terms of political success. This form of political discrimination that seriously undermined personal lives and family lives contributed to create the feeling of being hunted and pushed many over the top making them believe that this is was not just political. It became a fight for survival and in a fight for survival you kill or you are killed. It is an issue of Us or They.

Extremism has been promoted by political parties, para-political organisations like Hope Not Hate and the UAF, the mass media and the Security Services. People were becoming disenfranchised not just from politics but also from society as a whole that they saw as the enemy that had to be eliminated.

People like Jack Renshaw went from being healthy youngsters with political ambitions to being people frustrated and angry that no longer saw the point of trying to engage in the democratic process. The idea was then 'they hate us, they are ruining our lives, let's stand up and fight.'

Discrimination, persecution, harassment and bans will promote extremism. When people feel that they are being hunted, for a while they will withdraw and when they feel that there is nowhere to go they will turn around and kill.

We need open debate but not just debate. We need plural debate. We must not push people underground to the point that they no longer believe in democracy and fairness. When people become disenfranchised, they will be dangerous. If they are isolated from the rest of society, they will see society as the enemy. 

   

Brexit: How many EU citizens have settled status in the UK?

Brexit: How many EU citizens have settled status in the UK?

Talking about numbers it is usually reported that the number of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom is about 3 million. 

The British Government has repeatedly said that EU citizens who have been living in the United Kingdom for a given number of years have nothing to fear about their right to continue living in the United Kingdom.

Having said that, there is another aspect of the story. Yes, they will have the right to remain in the United Kingdom if by the time the United Kingdom is no longer a member country of the European Union they have settled status and for this they would have to have obtained what is usually known as Permanent Residence or Permanent Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. For those who have not applied for Settled Status it is foreseen that there will be a process for them to apply to continue living in the United Kingdom.

Some of those I have spoken with not only have Settled Status but they have also acquired British Citizenship but.... and this is a big but... how many don't have a British Passport nor settled status. On the Home Office website it is said that a new system - even an software application - will be in place for them to apply for settled status. However, on the same website it is said that 'should the application be successful' the individual concerned will be awarded either Settled or Pre-Settled Status.

Our concern is what will happen between the time when their right as EU Citizens to live in the United Kingdom comes to an end and the time when a final decision on their status is finally made. There are also two different deadlines. One deadline will be in effect if the United Kingdom and the EU reach an agreement and there is another deadline if the United Kingdom and the EU don't reach an agreement that shortens significantly the period of time for applications to be made and processed by the Home Office.

Other fundamental questions are how many EU citizens will need to apply to continue living in the United Kingdom and how long it will take to process the said applications. But there are various other questions that are equally important. What services will EU citizens have access to while they wait for their applications to be processed if the final decision is made long after their right to live in the United Kingdom comes to an end?

UK Citizenship Laws are stringent. For example, a child born in the United Kingdom is considered to be British if one of the parents is British or has Permanent Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. What happens to children when both parents are not British nor have Permanent Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom? What nationality will those children have? 

Not every marriage is a success and many end up in divorce. When there are family disputes and courts have to decide about custody rights, what will happen if an application to continue living the United Kingdom is not successful? Will parents have to leave the United Kingdom leaving their children behind?

If there are legal arrangements stating that one parent has to provide financial support to his wife/her husband and children, what happens when the party providing financial support and/or the party receiving financial support is/are forced to leave the United Kingdom? 

Focusing on the financial and political advantages/disadvantages of leaving the European Union, far too many issues have not been properly addressed. We are afraid that far too many people are now knowingly or unknowingly living in limbo. We sincerely hope that this is not yet another Windrush scandal in the making.

 

  

  

Antonio Tajani: What next? Das Vierte Reich?

Antonio Tajani: What next? Das Vierte Reich?

For the President of the European Parliament to make territorial claims that affect various countries in the European Union is a deeply worrying development. 

Let us remembers that World War Started as a serious of territorial claims were made that led directly to the opening salvos of World War Two.

In 1938, meeting in München, Germany, Prime Minister Chamberlain and others started the process of disintegration that was the starting point. Germany claimed the Sudetenland then part of the new formed Czechoslovakia in what was known as the München Pakt. When Poland didn't agree to return to Germany the so called Polish Corridor - lands that were given to Poland after World War One that cut off Eastern Prussia from the rest of Germany - the escalation led to September 1st 1939.

After World War Two, Germany suffered massive territorial losses when most of Prussia was given to Poland. Now, the President of the European Parliament Antonia Tajani lays claim to two Italian provinces that were given to Slovenia and Croatia and talks about Italians that were murdered at the end of World War Two.

The danger for the European Union is not just the fact that Britain is leaving the European Union and that others might be on their way out of the European Union. If present members of the European Union lay territorial claims that affect the territorial integrity of other members of the European Union this creates a very dangerous precedent.

Not content with getting a big chuck of Germany, some Polish politicians are claiming additional reparations for the invasion of 1939 and following developments. If national borders are once again disputed, we must brace ourselves for the worst.

This coincides with rising instability in many European countries that happen to be members of the European Union. Statements like statements made by Antonio Tajani are bound to promote territorial claims that will set EU countries against each other. The President of the European Parliament has spoken against Nationalism and Populist movements in several occasions but his remarks do a lot to promote Nationalism and Populist movements.

Peter Rushton: Badly misinformed about the character of English Law

Peter Rushton: Badly misinformed about the character of English Law

Once again, Peter Rushton has been found wanting on the pages of Heritage and Destiny. Under the title "Chabloz succeeds in criminalizing Holocaust denial", Peter Rushton blatantly shows that he knows very little about English Law in this regard.

As a matter of fact, Holocaust denial is not a crime in English Law and therefore nothing of what happened last week at Southwark Crown Court changes such fundamental fact.

If Mr Rushton had bothered to show up during the three days of the deliberations at Southwark Crown Court he would have been able to produce a better report of what happened at Southwark Crown Court.

Mr Rushton then writes about the ill informed views of Richard Edmonds about the trial.

That’s because the earlier court judgment could not set a precedent: it applied only to Ms Chabloz’s particular case. Richard Edmonds warned in an article for the Heritage & Destiny website published on January 2nd – ‘Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door’. Mr Edmonds’ warning has been fully vindicated this week.

He wrote:
“This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Once again, Richard Edmonds himself shows lack of acumen regarding the legal process and makes assumptions that are not based on fact. Richard Edmonds is writing about something he didn't witness and knows very little about.

Unfortunately, Peter Rushton - a man classed as a historian - couldn't stick to facts because neither him nor Richard Edmonds bothered to show up to really know what happened. 

It is fact that certain countries like France consider that Holocaust Denial is a crime. In the United Kingdom, Holocaust Denial is not a crime and a three day trial did not set up a precedent of any kind in this regard.

It is fact that millions of Jews were harassed, persecuted, tortured and killed in a variety of ways. No amount of revisionism can change that. Playing with numbers doesn't change the horrendous nature of what happened.

To say that the Holocaust didn't happen is to say that Adolf Hitler never existed, that Mein Kampf was never written, that the speeches made about getting rid of Jews were never made, that the Geheime Staatspolizei, the Schutzstaffel, the Waffen SS and even end units of the Wehrmacht proper were not committed to the expulsion, imprisonment and eradication of Jews.

This is John Tyndall, high ranking official of the National Front and later founder of the BNP of whom Richard Edmonds was a great admirer. Most probably one of the reasons why so called members of National Action show themselves with the same flag. White supremacists, Jew haters. 

We are talking about National Socialists that refuse to accept one of the core principles of National Socialism. The Holocaust did happen. We can discuss about numbers, about places and about methods used but no amount of discussion can erase what actually happened.

All the talk about who is and who isn't a revisionist coming from the authors of Heritage and Destiny is absolute crap generated by personal animosity and hatred.

   

   

Children Services: Extorting money from vulnerable parents

The extent of what is going on with regards to Social Services outsourcing services from private companies that charge parents to see their own children is still being determined. It is indecent and against basic Human Rights to charge parents to see their own children. 

The so called Contact Centres are no more than private businesses charging vulnerable people - very often on benefits or working part-time - that often don't have enough money to pay the £120 fee. If as a parent you don't have enough money to do a bank transfer to the said Contact Centres, the answer is "Sorry, this month you haven't paid and therefore you cannot see your child." 

We have written to Members of Parliament and until now we haven't got a reply. We are going to keep trying because vulnerable people deserve to be helped against what amounts to Slavery in the Twenty-First Century. A better system could not have been designed by the Mafia, but Mafia systems are being using by the State in Britain.

Alison Chabloz: On Inquisition, learning and Social Change

Alison Chabloz: On Inquisition, learning and Social Change

If we to continue talking about what is offensive, grossly offensive and extremely offensive, Humanity would be stuck in the Stone Age for every time there has been a leap into the future we have to deal with those who feel offended by evolution.

As a Catholic, I reject the Catholic Church as a political, often repressive and hierarchical institution that in many respects has been guilty of the worst atrocities in human history. The Earth is not the centre of the Universe despite the fact that Galileo Galilei was arrested and forced to explain himself in front of an Inquisition. 

We would be living with the unnecessary threat of deadly illnesses and still believing that bleeding a human being is the way to get rid of the said illnesses if people had not gone out of the way and risked their lives to dissect human corpses to get to know about the human body and the bodily functions of the human body. 

We cannot know the full truth about conflicts happening in our time but there are those who issue laws and promote fear to prevent people from inquiring and researching to get a better picture of what really happened and what is really happening. For many years, the German Wehrmacht was blamed for the execution of Polish officers. It was easy to blame Germany for it because after all Germany had been defeated in war and the Soviet Union was the winning partner although the partnership soon came to an end with the beginning of the Cold War. The Polish soldiers had actually being executed by Soviet Soldiers following Stalin's orders, the same Stalin that decimated by the Soviet Army by executing practically all high ranking officers of the Soviet Army to the point that the Soviets faced catastrophic defeats both when fighting Finland and Japan.

There isn't one version of history. In fact, there is one version of every conflict for every individual involved or affected by it and not even the most capable historian would be physically capable of understanding and knowing the full extent of a single conflict, let alone the complexity of  what we know as World War Two. The number of those who perished is absolutely irrelevant and in any case nobody can honestly say that he or she knows exactly how many died, how the died and in some cases not even where they died because they just vanished in the widespread mess of war.

To accuse Alison Chabloz of being a Holocaust Denier is an insult. She doesn't deny that Jews and others were persecuted. She expressly stated in court and outside the courtroom that she never denied that persecution and killings happened. She questions the means and the numbers and there is a living human being who could state without a shadow of a doubt that he or she knows how, where and how many people lost their lives but, once again, Intolerance and Stupidity get on the way - sometimes in a very threatening and forceful manner on the way of those who want to get a better picture of what really happened.

If as Humanity we are stuck with myths and half-truths, we are going to be deprived of a fundamental freedom that it is the freedom to find the truth and the freedom to evolve. Socrates didn't go to his death for nothing. He chose to drank poison and die because he was dying for a fundamental principle. Socrates stated: Say something and I will prove that you are wrong. Say the opposite and I will prove that you are wrong. But some of those who say that they admire Socrates are the first ones to pass laws to prevent individuals from questioning official versions of events. Another great philosopher - Descartes - said "I think, therefore I exist". We exist because of the capacity to think and our thinking must not be dictated by intolerant idiots that want to force us to accept myths and mythology.

Russian Internet

Russia's State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, adopted in the first reading on Tuesday a bill aimed to ensure security and availability of Russian Internet (Runet) in the event of potential isolation from the global network.

This means that data from its own organisations and users would stay within Russia, rather than be distributed globally.

The bill's text warns of the "violent nature of the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy adopted in September 2018," which accuses Russia of alleged hacking attacks "without evidence," said the law's sponsors.

Russia has regularly been accused of cyber attacks on other nations and organisations.

The draft law, called the Digital Economy National Programme, makes sure its internet provision can continue to function in the event of external powers attempting to disable the country's service.

The law's authors say that Russia will unplug itself in case of a major cyber threat.

Russia will be required to create its own version of the internet's address system or Domain Name System (DNS), so it can continue to operate if connections to international servers are interrupted.

Twelve organisations are involved in overseeing the root servers for DNS with none of them based in Russia.

The eventual plan is for all Russian internet traffic to pass through these new routing arrangements.

The project has received support from Russia's president Vladimir Putin.

Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

The incompatibilities of two legal systems: England's legal system and Northern Ireland's legal system are being used for political harassment and anti-terror legislation is being used for purposes that have nothing to do with tackling terrorism.

Northern Ireland is de-facto a country outside the United Kingdom, no matter what British politicians want you to believe and this is all too real when dealing with legal issues.

When it comes to bail conditions in England and in Northern Ireland, the English legal system struggles to find solutions that are not part of present legislation and judges have to be "creative' (creative is one way of putting it) to fill up the gaps created by legal incompatibilities.

Jayda Fransen's real residence is a property in Northern Ireland but English authorities forced her to reside in England having to pay for accommodation in England that she could ill afford. She was given the choice to live in a hostel surrounded by real criminals including drug-addicts, rapists, paedophiles and the like. Although part of the bill for housing is paid by the state, people placed on bail and forced to live at a certain address that is not their home address are forced to pay part of the bill even when they have their own homes somewhere else in the United Kingdom.

Given the fact that the reasons to imprison her and to later impose draconian bail conditions were utterly political, she was treated like somebody involved in Islamic Terrorism. Due to her very high political profile, she asked SO15 to ensure that the places where she was going to be forced to reside in were safe but SO15 officers failed in their duty of care and told her that 'if she was attacked, she would be transferred to some location in Liverpool'. Translation: wait until somebody attacks you for us to protect you.

A female Probation Officer when asked a direct yes/no question about very serious issues could only come up with a reply saying 'I believe that...'. "I believe that'? An Officer of the Law is not supposed to believe. An Officer of the Law must be able to answer Yes or No. Either security measures were implemented or security measures were not implemented.

We can hardly blame a Probation Officer of not being able to answer a direct question after listening to Members of Parliament including Members of the British Government talking about liability and evidence. They could only produce words like perhaps, maybe, possibly, most probably when dealing with an extremely serious accusation against another country.

It should be mandatory for Members of Parliament to witness trials to see how Legislation is actually being implemented and to see what is going wrong. The judges were struggling to pass sentence but in the end it is not the judges' fault to be put in such idiotic situation because of defective legislation passed by incompetent Parliamentarians who very seldom have to face real everyday cases in the courts.

Are British Courts of Law and Police Services being used for political persecution? Yes, they are. Anti-Terror legislation is being used in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism. Police Officers are being ordered to detain and arrest individuals using Anti-Terror legislation in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism.

The so called Prevent initiative has done more damage than good. If anything, it has created widespread animosity because of blatant abuses. Abuses will not promote trust. Abuses will promote Extremism. We have seen Police Officers asking families to denounce their own relatives and friends and asking teachers to denounce their own pupils including those of a very young age. These are not just nonsensical attitudes. They are dangerous attitudes. What kind of society are they trying to create?