British soldiers killed in Ukraine: Did Parliament allow the involvement of British soldiers in the battlefield?

If British soldiers are dying in Ukraine, when did Parliament allow the involvement of British soldiers as combattants in Ukraine? Did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his cabinet bypass Parliament. This allow should lead to the immediate fall of the Conservative goverment.

A British journalist was arrested at Luton Airport and interrogated for not less than five hours. It was a political interrogation. Among other revelations, the British journalist revealed that British elements are carrying out and planning acts of sabotage that constitute acts of war against the Russian Federation.

How long is this going to go before there is massive retaliation against Britain? When is Parliament going to start asking questions about what the Conservative government is actually doing in an area that could endanger the whole of Britain? 

 

Hope Not Hate, British Security Services and misguided politicians and political operators created National Action

 

Hope Not Hate, British Security Services and misguided politicians and political operators created National Action

Some people in this coutry surely disagreed or hated the British National Party and its then Leader Nick Griffin, but the BNP was standing for elections, getting elected representatives, playing by the rules, and by then there was not talk of any real threats or national security issues. 

In fact, there was a time when the BNP has many Counsellors elected, had a Member of the London Assembly Elected and two Members of the European Parliament. Therefore there was no appetite for any unfortunate adventures nor illegal activities. Everybody was playing by the book, but contratry to their names organisations like Hope Not Hate were busy spreading hate and promoting violence by trying to deprive voters of legitimate choices. Finally, the demise of the BNP thanks to do-gooders led to an environment in which individuals like Jack Renshaw, Mark Jones and others went the wrong way and in 2013 National Action was founded not to pursue or engage in legal political activities. They saw the demise of the BNP as living proof that it was no use to take part in legal political activities and this is why the name National Action. This refers to direct actions against those they saw as political enemies.

Years have passed but the same wrong strategies are in place and this includes using anti-terror legislation and in particular Schedule 7 for political purposes, detaining and harassing political operators or even blocking their personal back accounts and blocking party political bank accounts to presumably depriving political movements from the necessary resources that they use to stand in elections. Forced by a party political organisation called Electoral Commission - the Electoral Commission in violation of its remit is preventing political organisations from being registered as political parties and forcing their members to stand as independent candidates in every election where and when they can stand. 

The recent by election in Wakefield - called because of sexual misconduct of the Member of Parliament that represented the said constituency - is a clear example. Police forces were used for political purposes to detain, harass, and prevent political operators from engaging in the lawful business of standing in elections. The latest report indicates that thanks to Police actions bank accounts were frozen or closed down and all done for purposes of political persecution in the United Kingdom.

Just a few days ago at Walworth Police Station near Elephant and Castle in London, I had the opportunity to talk with two members of SO15 - I am always open to talk with members of the British Security Services - to give them advice about the errors of their ways and about how the troglodite measures of Police forces in the United Kingdom are actually promoting terrorism. Quite a few examples of such measures tell me that Security Services in the United Kingdom and this goes down to Police Forces in the United Kingdom are out of their depth and have very little understanding of what is actually happening.

Precisely because of the fact that Nationalist organisations are not being allowed to operate lawfully -  many are not even allowed to registered as political parties and on top of that when they stand independent candidates they suffered politically motivated arrests, harassment, have property seized and bank accounts frozen or closed down - there is the certain danger that individuals deprived of the right to take part in lawful political activities might suddenly decide to engage in other kinds of political activities and seek the support of external organisations or even foreign governments to achieve their aims. 

External organisations and foreign goverments can hit a pot of gold. As anybody rational and knowledgeable enough would understand, people can become national security assets not for Britain but for foreign organisations and foreign goverments. Security Services and the Armed Forces in Britain know that they have been infiltrated by political operators many of whom have strong support within the Security Services and within the Armed Forces. An article published by The Guardian attests to that but timidly refers - sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly to 'far right extremism within the Security Services and the Armed Forces'.

God help Britain if there is ever a war in Europe. There is every sign that Britain will be attacked from within. When it comes to politics and geopolitics, there are no national borders anymore and British Security Services, politicians and mass media can naively believe that blocking financial resources in the United Kingdom they will prevent well trained operators from doing whatever they set themselves to achieve. For example, financial resources can be transfered without registered bank accounts. Although British troops are not formally deployed in a theatre of war in Europe, the war is already taking place in many different forms and this is being reflected by economic realities. Does anybody understand that present economic uncertainties and political instability are caused by geopolitical decisions adopted by the British government? When you try to destabilize another country because of what is happening in Ukraine then you are bound to suffer the consequences and this is exactly what is happening. Sanctions and other measures adopted against the Russian Federation are backfiring in a big way and both Western Europe and Eastern Europe are feeling the brunt. 

What role will British Nationalists play? They have no reason to be loyal to a system that seeks to destroy them and in the process destroy Britain. Something very similar is happening in other European countries. In Germany, both industrialists and trade unions fear economic instability leading to political instability. In the Netherlands, we see different interest groups including those involved in transport sectors and farming taking action i.e. farmers acquiring water canons to counter-attack if attacked by Police forces. None other than the Dutch Vice President of the European Commission alerted about the certain danger of social unrest. Ladies and gentlemen, misguided geopolitical decisions and equally misguided environmental policies will lead Europe towards the 1930s. If Europe moves towards the 1930s, who do you think will benefit? And going back to Germany, will the Grünen in Germany be willing to put aside their aspirators if it becomes patently clear that we do need to use more fossil fuels to cope with present challenges? How long will Herr Olaf Scholz coalition last?

SO15, British Police forces, politicians and mass media need to understand that although geographically Britain might be a group of islands we cannot be in isolation in terms of economic, social and political developments happening right now in Europe. They must also understand that blocking individuals and preventing them from participating in lawful political activities they are creating an even greater danger in the United Kingdom.

Military realities: Armies cannot be built overnight and speeches based on thin air are not helpful

 

This morning the Conservative Party looks smaller in Parliament having lost two by-elections created by sheer stupidity of two now former Conservative MPs who engaged in activities that led to the conviction of one of them for criminal sexual behaviour and another for impropriety having been forced to accept the fact that he had been watching pornographic videos inside the House of Commons. Not a very uplifting behaviour and nothing to be proud of.

But something else is looking pretty small and this is something to be a lot more concerned about. The size of the British Armed Forces is smaller than the Russian deployments in Ukraine while those in power are engaged in warmongering activities that increase the risk of a major incident triggering yet another European-wide war. As Chinese preparations continue apace, those in charge in the United Kingdom seems oblivious to the fact that there is an obvious issue concerning numbers. It is a bit like the case of a mouse trying to bite an elephant. If the plan is to go to war on Continental Europe or in Asia, Britain has lost the war before the war has even started. The Foreign Secretary seems to live in her own fantasy world and the Defense Secretary is pushing forward plans that will make British Forces even smaller. Britain will end up fighting using toothpicks.

With a total population of about 65 million people, British Armed Forces are remarkably small, so small that they could only play second fiddle in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP had some troubles trying to explain in the House of Commons what had actually happened in Afghanistan and the apalling details of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. As it was explained to me, the issue when it comes to recruitment is not lack of potential recruits. Unhealthy habits lead to lack of the minimal requirements in terms of physical and mental fitness required to join the forces. In an attempt to boost the number of recruits able to pass fitness test, the decision was taken to open the field and accept recruits coming from the Commonwealth. As this did not work either, my educated guess is that plans drawn by Ben Wallace MP that include smaller conventional numbers is simply a reflection of what is happening in terms of recruitment. Too many people in Britain are not fit for purpose.

But there is more. On top of the fact that research indicates that in Britain about one in ten teenagers go on to suffer mental health issues - many cases go undetected - new medical conditions appear. One of them is DLD (Development Language Disorder) and youngsters suffering from DLD have difficulties talking and/or understanding. This is a condition that affects initially children and persists into adulthood. The condition can be missed, misdiagnosed or misinterpreted as poor behaviour, poor listening or inattention. About 7.5 percent of children 4-5 years of age suffer from it. Children's ability to learn is impared. It affect reading or writing and is often linked with dislexia. All in all, this means that a vast number of individuals will never be fit for military service for physical reasons, for mental reasons and for both mental and physical reasons reducing the pool of resources in terms military manpower. We are talking about millions of individuals in the UK that face a very uncertain future and the real possibility of not being able to cope by themselves in civilian life let alone military life.

This should also be a reason for concen in terms of National Security when we talk about long term commitments in a theatre of war. 

SO15: Myth and Reality

 

SO15: Myth and Reality

Every night, when we go to bed to gather our energies at the end of a hard day, we are confronted by the harsh reality of who we are. We are vulnerable individuals caught up in the net of our own uncertainties and weaknesses. The adrenaline that kept as going during the day seems to be gone and we are down to our individuality, away from the trials and tribulations, from the challenges that we face, from the doubts and hesitations.

Even the most frightful organisations are no more than a collection of vulnerable individuals very much like ourselves. SO15 has been designated as an anti-terrorism tool, but how much of an anti-terrorism tool any organisation can be without proper information and without the proper tools to analize and to arrive at the right conclusions that will allow it to achieve its aims is a fundamental question. I am no spring chicken. As a child, as a teenager, as a young man, I watched World War Two movies and I usually complained about being born too late to actually have been a protagonist in World War Two. I felt that after World War Two, whatever happened afterwards would have insignificant. Here we are living in times when much of the present day politics is described using as a reference World War Two. When we talk about politics, we used words like Nazi, Fascist, Stalinist, and so forth. It feels like whatever happened 70 or so years ago is still with us and is very much relevant to us.

I look at and listen to youngsters today who are frightfully oblivious to what happen in my young man's years in Latin America, for example. In the movie The Two Popes - Jonathan Pryce plays Pope Francis. Pope Francis tells Pope Benedict played by Anthony Hopkins about the death flights that took place in the River Plate Region. Most people, including SO15, MI5, MI6, would be totally unaware of the methods used in those days that rivalled what was done during World War Two. What were the death flights? Political detainees, after being tortured and drugged, were loaded onto airforce planes, flown over the sea and thrown while still alive into the sea. You can imagine that when their bodies touched the sea the water would have the consistency of concrete. Bones would be crashed and faces disfigured to the point of making them unrecognizable. This and other methods were used during the 1970 and 1980. 

I lived in the River Plate region at that time and I can tell you here and now that there was a lot more than that and, when it comes to terror, what has happened in Britain compared to what happened in Latin America is no more than peanuts. Talking about doing something is nothing. The real issue is doing it and much of what was done and is still being done in Latin America beggars belief because it surpasses in more ways than one what happened in World War Two in terms of levels of perfection of cruelty.

Politics and geopolitics have come together as one, but security services are failing to grasp the extent of the ongoing changes. Today, it is about movements more than political parties, movements that have links across national borders, share resources and for which ordinary political processes like elections are just a means to an end and getting elected representatives might not be the main purpose. Today's security services are about 'Far Right' at a national level and are totally oblivious to the dimensions of what they call Far Right. Anybody without a real political agenda ends up being called Far Right or Extremist or the like. The game has changed but politicians, mass media and commentators have failed to grasp the fact of how much things have changed. I confess that I now rarely read the pages of newspapers like The Independent. So called political commentators don't seem to have a clue of what is really going on. The likes of Tommy Robinson, Jack Renshaw, and others are classified as Far Right, something that they are not in any way, shape or form. Misguided? Perhaps. But the aforementioned could not be Far Right, not in a million years. Terrorists? Really? There has to be a long term ideology. There has to be a plan. There has to be a set of objectives depicting a new reality that they try to create.

If all Jack Renshaw thought about was about killing one Member of Parliament, where is the ideology? Where is the long term plan? Where are the long term objectives? A Member of Parliament can be replaced by another Member of Parliament who will have the same or similar views. Threatening somebody is a criminal act, but  what would then be achieved? What real change would then be achieved? Absolutely nothing. One individual is replaced by another individual and it is business as usual. People can lament Jo Cox's death or David Amess's death. What did the culprits actually achieve? Absolutely nothing. Did killing or maming people on July 7th 2005 achieve anything? Corpses everywhere. Lives of passers-by lost. What did killing an unarmed Police Officer right in front of the gates of the House of Commons actually achieve? And what about the incident in London Bridge or in Manchester? What about those killed Lee Rigby? Such actions are the actions of deranged individuals very much like the one who went along the high street street in Streatham in South London trying to stab pedestrians achieved nothing.

When politicians, security forces, mass media and members of the public continue to think about such acts as acts of terrorism, they are taking their eyes away from the ball. We have not had real acts of terrorism and if we continue to misuse anti-legislation using anti-terror legislation for political ends we are going to lose everything worth living for. The real danger is hidden and for such danger we are totally unprepared.

When a politician, that could be a Member of the Cabinet, threatens another country - even without knowing that he or she is threatening another country - the danger grows. When the present Foreign Secretary Liz Truss spoke about a 'no fly zone', she obviously was not aware of that imposing a 'no fly zone' was a declaration of war. When she promoted the idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine, she obviously was not aware of the fact that mercenaries are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Now, those captured in Ukraine face the death penalty.

When General Patrick Sanders speaks about British forces that should be prepared to fight on the continent, what he says goes against what the Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP is promoting. You don't fight long wars with commando units. So General Patrick Sanders wants Britain to go in one direction and the Defense Secretary is moving Britain in another direction and the two things are totally incompatible. Fighting long wars means more manpower, not less manpower and you need to get used to the fact that there will be a huge number of casualties along the way and you need to accept there would be retaliation and that the British mainland would be targetted. No one cares to explain to the British public the true meaning of what is being talked about. War in Europe will not be like recents wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Instead of compartmentalised actions in terms of national security, Britain will have to think about an integral approach based on the idea that national politics and geopolitics go hand in hand. There are clear examples of how disastrous such compartmentalised actions can be. For many years, the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force operated as separate entities. There are tragic examples to show how misguided such actions were. Two British ships sent to Asia to confront Japan were sunk by Japanese torpedo airplanes. The assault against Narvik was yet another example of how foolish such actions were. Without air cover, the Royal Navy was a sitting duck. Integration is the way forward because the next war will be fought both at home and abroad.  

War in Europe is coming: Britain will be at war but mainland Britain will be part of the battlefield

General Sir Patrick Sanders is right in terms of preparing Britain for an unavoidable World War Three

As Lithuania provokes the Russian Federation by using the Polish Corridor factor blocking transport links to Kaliningrad, Britain could be at war sooner than later.

Undoubtedly, London and the main capital cities in Britain will be bombed but military manpower will be needed not just in mainland Europe but also in Britain to deal with the catastrophe that will be the direct consequence of nuclear impacts in the United Kingdom, not forgetting campaigns of sabotage against key targets in the United Kingdom. Police forces will have to be replaced by military forces to maintain order in the United Kingdom.

The map shows the impact of just one nuclear head in London, but let us remember that each missile can carry more than ten nuclear devices so it is worth preparing Britain for the worst.

Politicians and mass media continue playing a war of words that could have disastrous consequences and Britain would be just one of the countries that will be lost in such madness.

Presumably SO15 and other branches of the British Security Services are taking stock of what will undoubtedly happen in the United Kingdom when there is such a war.

Most of the general public is totally oblivious to what is being done on their behalf very much like the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were oblivious to what was going to happen to their cities in 1945. For most people, the dimension of the tragedy is something they couldn't possible understand or believe to be possible. 

People, your lives will be terminated. You are going to die in one of the most horrendous manners ever conceived by Man. This is coming.

 

Nationalism: Russian and British working together

 

The one issue the Establishment fears is that Russian Nationalists and British Nationalists are working together. As it happens, Britain First with Paul Golding as Leader have close links with the political party led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky and, incidentally, Andrei Lugovoi is a Member of the Russian Duma (Russian Parliament).

When Paul Golding and his team were arrested at Heathrow Airport by SO15 when returning from a visit to Moscow, the criminals of SO15 used Schedule 7 to harass them for political reasons. Nothing to do with terrorism. Paul Golding was singled out, taken to court and convicted because of his work for British Nationalism while the SO15 traitors congratulated themselves for the dirty work of the British Security Services - completely politicized - against Britain.

The pretence is in plain view for all to see. When for more that 16 years, British children were raped and drugged by Muslim criminals, where were the British Security Services? Nowhere to be see. They knew the killers of Lee Rigby. Did they do anything to prevent the assassination of Lee Rigby? They knew the culprits of Manchester and they knew what they were up to? Did they do anything to prevent the attack in Manchester. They knew the culprits of July 2005 in London. Did they do anything to prevent the attack that left more than 50 people dead and many more injured and disabled?

The British Security Services falsely accused Andrei Lugovoi to protect Boris Berezovsky. They knew that if Alexander Litvinenko could be persuaded to provide evidence against Berezovsky's involvement in Chechnya supporting AlQaeda andTaliban while British soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, the British government would be in deep waters. This is why British Security Services agents killed Alexander Litvinenko to protect Boris Berezovsky. Later on, they dispatched Boris Berezovsky to tie up lose ends. Boris Berezovsky was no longer an asset for either the CIA or the British Establishment. 

 

Schedule 7 and SO15: Anti-Terror or Political Persecution

Schedule 7 and SO15: Anti-Terror or Political Persecution?

Next week on May 20th 2020, at the Westminster Magistrates Court, Paul Golding will be standing against charges of terrorism because when detained at Heather Airport on his way back from a visit to Moscow where he met political party representatives he didn't agree to reveal pin codes and passwords giving access to his phone and computers. Officers at the scene indicated that what they were doing had nothing to do with terrorism, but proceeded to interrogate Paul Golding and took away his electronic devices that were returned to Paul Golding after Paul Golding told the authorities that he would seek a Judicial review of the case.

Oddly enough, after almost six months, Paul Golding received a letter indicated that he had to go to court to face terrorism charges. It was self-evident that the case has nothing to do with terrorism and that it is a blatant case of political persecution during Lockdown measures aimed at preventing the spread of Corona Virus.

Also oddly enough, when Paul Golding asked for information about the organisation of a rally and a march to protest against the use of Anti-Terror Legislation for political persecution, the said rally and march will be allowed. So apparently, we live in two different dimensions. On the one hand, we are talking about limiting peoples' movement to prevent the spread of Corona Virus and on the other rallies and marches that will lead to mass gatherings in Central London will be taking place during the Lockdown. This reinforces suspicions about the real motives behind the implementation of Lockdown.

At a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will attend Parliament to talk about a possible reduction of furlough monies paid to keep peoples' jobs, we see Police organisations and the Judiciary wasting vast amounts of monies in political persecution. For quite a long time, people have been complaining that Police forces and the Judiciary have been used for spurious purposes that have nothing to do with the administration of Justice in the United Kingdom.

Of course, Paul Golding is being penalised for his friendly relations with the Russian Federation that he had visited in several occasions being officially invited to speak at the Duma, the Russian Parliament. Anybody who doesn't follow the trend of unfair demonisation and attacks against the Russian Federation and of its authorities and among them President Vladimir Putin is bound to be attacked by the British Establishment, the Police, the British mass media and the Judiciary that has become a tool for political persecution. 

Anti-Terrorism or Dirty Political Games

Anti-Terrorism or Dirty Political Games

If in the United Kingdom Anti-Terror Legislation is used for political purposes, Britain will face a nightmare of major proportions. With the arrival of Tony Blair as British Prime Minister in 1997, things went from bad to worse. Anti-Terror Legislation was adopted primarily to go against Muslim communities in the United Kingdom.

With a bill introduced by the then Secretary Jacqui Smith, the door was open for detention without trial, suspension of Habeas Corpus and anonimity to cover up the activities of British Security Services in party political activities and criminal activities in the United Kingdom.

Many questions were raised about the actions of Russian oligarchs that left Russian Federation and former republics of the Soviet Union with vast amounts of money that they had stolen from Russia and republics of the former Soviet Union.

Britain welcome them and explanation was they were the good guys runnning away from bad fallen Soviet Union. They transfered money to the pockets of their British hosts and came with a network of contacts that could be useful for intelligence organizations including the CIA and British Security Services.

With money and contacs they brought more corruption to the United Kingdom as if existing corruption in the United Kingdom was not enough and wars between oligarchs started to be fought in the United Kingdom. 

One of those oligarchs was Boris Berezovsky that soon became a star. He had been second pair of hands of Boris Yeltsin and he had with him Alexander Litvinenko - a former KGB agent that had gone rogue. They were both up to their ears supporting Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and used their support for Islamic terrorists as revenge when they feel from grace and were forced to run away. 

Boris Berezovky was in his element in Britain. He had money, a network that included former Soviet republics, and was a useful pawn for the CIA and British intelligence services. He was very much a celebrity that relied on the support of a firm of lawyers that could get British visas for his friends that were on the run. Britain became a magnet for every crook that wanted to avoid the courts.

Because he was a key piece on the chessboard and due to his support to the enemies of the Russian Federation, Russian authorities asked Britain to send him back. Russia chosen legal means to trying and take him back to face the courts and Britain protected him because of his apparent usefulness. 

But his lieutenant Alexander Litvinenko was his Achilles Heel. He knew too much about the businesses of Boris Berezovky and in the end this led to his demise at the hands of British agents that in an effort to protect the major asset - Boris Berezovky - didn't hesitate in eliminating a loose end.

In 2001, Britain got involved in Afghanistan, a major opium producer. There were enormous amounts of money to be made. The public explanation was the fight against AlQaeda and Taliban. The true reason was the drugs trade coming from Afghanistan. American soldiers, British soldiers and soldiers of another nationalists were sent to die in Afghanistan and the world was told that they had conquered Afghanistan when in reality they barely controlled some areas including areas of Kabul. Most of the country remained in the hands of tribal leaders and Taliban. No surprise then that the conflict has lasted more than 18 years.

As long as there is money to be made in the opium trade, they will try and keep some kind of military presence in Afghanistan even if doing so means putting the lives of British soldiers in danger. The rising incidence of drug addiction affecting Western troops tells you the real story and USA has not escaped the realities of the drug trade linked to Afghanistan. The use of opioids in the USA has become widespread and endemic.

But going back to the story linked to maffia boss Boris Berezovky, the way to make the British position untenable was to denounce the businesses that Boris Berezovsky was involved in and part of his business activities included supporting Chechen rebels allied to AlQaeda and Taliban while British troops were fighting and dying in Afghanistan. 

Russian agents approached Alexander Litvinenko. The idea was to persuade Alexander Litvinenko to cooperate to be able to expose Boris Berezovsky and by extension expose British authorities that supported him. The quick to prevent a scandal and protect Boris Berezovsky was for British agents to kill Alexander Litvinenko. The method used by British authorities was radioactive substances that supposedly could only be produced in a military laboratory. Well, Britain has such kind of laboratory and stores the said radioactive substances. The British Establishment quickly blamed Russian agents for the demise of Alexander Litvinenko and convinced the mass media - that it takes very little to convince because of long standing anti-Russian prejudices - that it could ony have been done by Russian agents. Since the days of the Cold War, blaming Russia has been a British sport.

With Alexander Litvinenko out of the way, the British Establishment thought the problem had been satisfactorily solved. This wouldn't last. The business activities of Boris Berezovky were obviously not limited to the United Kingdom. He had links in Latin America were there were records of his "business activities". In time, in his wars with other Russian oligarchs, Boris Beresovky got embroiled in a legal battle with Roman Abramovich - a real celebrity and more so for his acquisition of Chelsea Football Club. Roman Abramovich defeated Boris Berezovsky in British courts and at this point in time Boris Berezovky had become much more of a liability than an asset. British agents conveniently "suicided" Boris Berezovsky conveniently get rid of loose ends. 

With Boris Berezovsky out of the way, the attention turned to Roman Abramovich and the next move of the British Establishment was obvious and foreseeable: they refused to renew Roman Abramovich's British visa. 

Going back to the main subject, the legislation introduced under a Labour government by the then Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith has been steadily enhanced and now is being used not only to target Muslim communities in the United Kingdom but also as a political tool against those the British Establishment doesn't like. 

During the trials against Alison Chabloz and Jez Turner there were attempts by Prosecutors to use anti-Terrorism legislation in cases that had nothing to do with terrorism. They have tried to use anti-Terror Legislation against Tommy Robinson. Others, less fortunate, have got long sentences because of alleged terrorist offenses.

Police forces and especially S015 are now openly using anti-Terror Legislation for political persecution against individuas that have nothing to do with terrorism. In this particular situation, againts those who are see as too close to the Russian Federation.

As a fabricated dodgy dossier was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, there are fabricated cases for political reasons. When governments use anti-Terrorism legislation to deal with political opponents they cross a red line and the courts become kangaroo courts very much like the courts of a totalitarian state and this is happening in Britain today.

 

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?