Monday, 22 May 2017

Al Hilli/Mollier Chevaline Killings

Zaid al-Hilli and Saad al-Hilli's car


The brutal killings in 2012, and in particular the trauma and tragedy of two little girls made orphans by it, drew the attention of the whole world. 

I was one of many thousands who were touched and intrigued by the circumstances and sought within the constraints imposed by government agencies and media reports, to study and comment on them. 

What I discovered, and reported, was disconcerting. 

It began with an obvious conflict of evidence that suggested either the French or British authorities - or both! - were engaged in manipulating the truth, or even lying! It was but the first of numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and irregularities that appeared to discredit the reported circumstances and investigation.

Specifically, this first anomaly, related to the French claim, as soon as the event became public, which was within an hour of it taking place, that the initial report came from an English cyclist. This person, it was reported, came upon the scene almost immediately after it had happened and used his mobile phone to raise the alarm. Within days this had been categorically denied by the person concerned - with the apparent approval of the British authorities.

This raised a profound question that could not be explained, even by French incompetence. It was a conflict of evidence of such importance that it raised questions about the reliability of all the other reported facts and indeed this proved to be true. It was only the first of many such!

The French emergency authorities, in common with all other advanced nations,  for obvious reasons, records all telephone calls to the emergency services. Yet that initial call, claimed to be by the Englishman, has never been released. It is highly unlikely that his call could have been confused with the Frenchman who later claimed to be responsible, so it remains a highly suspicious mystery that implicates the French authorities and questions their credibility. Many more followed.

Questions still surround the circumstances of the attack and how it was handled, not least when two days later the crime scene was allowed to be trampled over by an army of press and public before again becoming restricted for further forensic examination! This remember when it was a high-profile international case, headed up by France's top criminal investigation teams!

I do not intend to rehearse the incredible twists and turns, the multiple leads that led nowhere; the theories that had to be false; how evidence was withheld; how certain victims appeared to be protected; how police reports kept changing; how released photographs proved lies were told; how witnesses reports were never explained; how forensic reports were mishandled and countermanded; how the British and French authorities appeared to be following conflicting agendas whilst claiming to be "co-operating". 

How could it be possible with so many witness statements and details of vehicles no one was apprehended? Incredibly it took a year to learn that a leading suspect on a motor bike was actually interviewed at the time by French Government employees who also drove past the scene within minutes of the murders, yet this had to be revealed by a British BBC 'Panorama' team! Nothing much came of it with a totally unconvincing explanation.

This was an event that was almost unprecedented in the way it was handled with not one but two - French and British - large police teams of upwards of a hundred officers. Yet after nearly five years, virtually no progress and the teams virtually disbanded! Is it any wonder that Saad al Hilli's brother, Zaid is demanding a Judicial Review?

In my humble opinion, only one explanation can account for this failure and for the mountain of anomalies: State involvement by secret agencies, involved in the events themselves and what appears to be a subsequent cover-up. Nothing that has happened in France, or indeed many other European locations, since that 2012 event, has done other than confirm some very dark and coordinated 'terrorrist' activity centred on the continuing conflict in the Middle East and long-term CIA/Mossad goals, of which I believe this was just another example.

Even were Zaid al Hilli to succeed in getting his Judge-led inquiry, that no doubt would take years and cost millions, recent experience of such does not bode well for resolution, other than proving that when State interests are involved, regular criminal investigations prove inadequate.

In fact, I rather take the view that the killings had a far wider and deeper significance than what has been admitted officially and something of a water-shed in both the West's (particularly France and Britain's) involvement in Syria and the phenomenon of supposedly "ISIS" terror attacks in European centres of population, beginning in France. 

Whether the al Hilli/Mollier killings were directly connected must remain speculative unless or until one or other of the secret agencies 'spills the beans', so to speak. What we can say with a degree of certainty is that the al Hilli family had deep and long-standing connections to British and American Intelligence, whilst operating at the highest levels of the Iraqi government, up until Sadaam Hussein gained power, largely at the behest of the Americans. 

In this you observe the tensions that have existed between America and Britain over Iraq and what effectively has been a transfer of influence from an old empire to a newer one. Saad's uncle initially blocked Sadaams rise to power and was subsequently tortured by him, from which he never recovered. Saad's father fared only slightly better. Both sought refuge in Britain (not America notice) and were thereby indebted.

It is highly likely that Foreign Office contacts were maintained over the two or three decades that intervened between their flight and the first and second Iraqi wars, when no doubt their intelligence and contacts within the Arab world would have been highly prized. There are also clear indications that at the time of the second war, Saad might have benefited from his assistance in the area of citizenship. The al Hilli family was never an 'ordinary' one, and the fact that it was presented as one by the British Government, lends credence to the suspicion that Saad's fateful trip to France was anything but normal either.

In fact nothing about the French 'holiday' was normal. Saad told no one where he was going. His children were kept out of school on a new term without notice. He took extensive security precautions with his house. His detailed movements en route have never been revealed. He move camp site at least once when he arrived. He was noticed leaving the site frequently and witnessed having an argument with an unidentified male only the night before his death. He took an inexplicable and bizarre route for an inexplicable purpose and there is clear evidence, both forensic and circumstantial, that a meeting took place between him and Mollier in this remote spot.

Yet both British and French sources both wish us to believe that this was an ordinary holiday trip, that Mollier had lost his way and was an accidental victim, and that there was no connection between the two. The treatment of Mollier by the French authorities, with-holding any images interminably and then only issuing old ones and consistently claiming he was not a target, contrary to all the evidence, speaks volumes. Indeed as was subsequently revealed, not only were lies told by the French authorities in respect to where he fell and died, but the seven bullets in him suggest quite the opposite to what was stated. This it might be noted was the sort of treatment commonly meted out to a traitor in fact!

It should be noted the current wave of 'Isis' attacks in France happened in March 2012 when a man on a motor bike (note!) shot dead a religious instructor and three children, following an earlier attack when he shot dead three Arab/black paratroopers. The Chevaline murders took place six months later (1) A little over two years later in January 2015, the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred in Paris followed by many more, all of which appear to include fabricated elements. (2)

But perhaps more significant even in terms of timing were the co-ordinated actions of France and Britain in Libya and Syria. In March 2011 bombing was carried out by these two countries that lasted a further five months. Lord Owen's optimistic but flawed assessment is here. (3) It would be a brave person who held to it today with the country reduced chaos. 

Then just two years after the Libyan fiasco, and one year after Chevaline, Prime Minister Cameron had his plans to bomb Syria thwarted by the House of Commons (4) with Iran also in Western sights. Remember the notorious American/Israeli 'Stuxnet' attack directed at primarily Iran and ruining 1000 centrifuges but later causing widespread computer problems, happened in and around 2010. (5) Saad of course was a computer expert and Mollier was a metallurgist in nuclear related materials, in a firm that had had questionable dealings with Iran. 'Areva' has inherited a long collaborative history in developing Iran's nuclear industry and amazingly Iran has a 10% stake in the State owned company. (6)

So all of this - and much more - makes for a heady and explosive mix. Was Saad al Hilli working, maybe reluctantly, by British Intelligence? Was Mollier a British agent with important information to impart. Were both set up and attacked by a combined American/Israeli/French operation as a clear warning to the British? Or was it, in the immortal words of Monty Python, something completely different? We can only speculate pending Zaid's "Judge-led Inquiry" - if he gets it.

"Time tells" they say. But only if those in the know decide to reveal the truth. That it must be said, looks increasingly unlikely.

See also:







Reposted from Daily Express article here:

"French Alps murders: Find monsters who butchered my brother and his family"

"THE brother of a businessman gunned down with his wife and

 mother-in-law in the French Alps is demanding a British

 judicial review of the long-running case.

Zaid al-Hilli, 58, says that no progress has been made in the five years since the killings, and a High Court judge should be given access to all of the case files in a bid to find the assassin.
His younger brother Saad, 50, his dentist wife Iqbal, 47, and her mother Suhaila al-Allaf, 74, were shot in the head at close range, execution style, while on holiday.
They were murdered in their car, which had stopped in a lay-by off a remote forest road near the village of Chevaline, close to Lake Annecy on September 5, 2012.
Iraqi-born satellite engineer Saad and Iqbal’s young daughters, Zainab and Zeena, miraculously survived the shooting.
Speaking from his home in Surrey, widower Zaid said: “There has been no progress for years so it is time for a review.
“I do not trust the French police or the prosecutor, so I believe the review should be conducted by a High Court judge.
“I would be happy to give evidence to the review and answer any questions put to me.”
His lack of faith in the police came after he was held four years ago on suspicion of conspiracy to murder his brother and family by Surrey police, working with their French counterparts.
Zaid said: “They arrested me and took me to Guildford police station and interviewed me over two days. They were claiming all sorts of rubbish. I said to them, ‘Produce the evidence’.
“It didn’t worry me because I wasn’t hiding anything,” he added.
French cyclist Sylvain Mollier, 45, was also shot dead at the scene of horror and had more bullets in his body than the other victims, suggesting he was the real target of the attack.
“I think the authorities know who was behind it... it was to do with the French cyclist and his affairs,” said Zaid.
"My brother and his family were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"They were tourists. They were not the targets.
“This is why a review is important because it would bring everything out. There is so much information that a judge needs to look and recommend what needs to be done.”
He claimed the murder scene was not properly protected for a long period of time, and that valuable forensic evidence was lost, making the investigation harder.
“They only kept the crime scene sealed off for a few days, when I have been told it should have been sealed off for three weeks,” said Zaid.
DNA traces are said to have been found inside the family’s BMW estate car and on a bumper after further forensic tests were ordered in 2015, three years after the killings.
The traces were run through police data bases across Europe but no matches were made.
One line of inquiry for French police was that the al-Hillis were unlucky enough to have crossed the path of a lone psychopath as he launched an unprovoked attack on the cyclist.
French police have also examined a theory that there was a dispute between the al-Hilli brothers over an inheritance, a theory Zaid claims has no basis in fact.
Although the brothers had rowed about Saad’s £1million property in Claygate, Surrey, the dispute was not a major issue, he insists."

Sunday, 21 May 2017

Moves to make criticism of Israel "anti-Semitism".


The UK government’s new ‘anti-semitism’ definition conflates racism with valid criticism of Israel

We must be free to critisise evil acts by humans whoever they are, wherever they are. Nations, organisations and individuals must be subject to the same principle. Nor can religious groups be excluded. To do so makes all complicit in their evil acts. (1)

Now it is a given that Israel wishes to be considered a JEWISH state and most of its violent and immoral acts are carried out by Jews, therefore it is hard to distinguish between the two.

There have been notable Jews that have taken a brave and principled stand against the mistreatment of (mainly) Palestinians but by and large the Jewish hinterland has been silent. (2) Until it raises it voice against the villainy that is fascist Zionism and all it has entailed, how are we to distinguish between the two?

Jews are powerful and influential in world affairs, and sadly America has sold its soul to them. Britain may be less so, but being tied to America, has shamefully agreed to turn a blind eye to grievous breaches of human rights and basic natural law that still continues to this day.

Any attempt to prevent free speech that involves highlighting these things is as good as agreeing to them, and if so, it cannot be long before we see our own government employ the same methods. Sorry, but this is already apparent! (3)

Remember this famous saying by William Drummond: "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave."


1. See :

2. In this category perhaps we should mention:

British politician, the late Sir Gerald Kaufman. See: and

Miko Peled. and

Norman Finkelstein. See: and


Monday, 15 May 2017

Shaftesbury's 1675 Warning More Relevant than Ever!

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." - William Drummond.

All around the world, those who are in positions of authority, use the tremendous power of the State to control the thoughts and actions within it. This can and does include incarceration, torture and death - either legitimate or assassination - besides a plethora of other available manipulators and sanctions. I am informed by Clive Stafford Smith, the founder of "Reprieve" that somewhere in the world a person is officially executed every FOUR HOURS! 

Of course this fails to even consider the gay abandon with which countries dispense death, injury and destruction by military means, and hold it up in the public imagination as some sort of 'good'! 

In reality, the only thing that protects - or fails to protect - the individual in such situations, is sound, fair and humanitarian law, and a respect for it in the corridors of power, however inconvenient that may be. 

Human nature is such that there will always be those who want greater power to do as they please with other human beings and prepared to fabricate the circumstances to have their wicked way. So we all have a duty to be alert to the machinations of government designed to curtail the real and natural freedoms we possess, and to resist them with every legal means at our disposal. 

It is a mistake to consider this a once-for-all thing. It is an on-going and continuous process to assert the rights and freedoms of the individual, versus the over-weaning power of individuals, institutions or government. It requires citizens to be informed and politically active.

The protections that we enjoy - such as they are - are under threat here in Britain as they are around the world. They have been dearly won by remonstrance and hard work over hundreds of years, as this article attempts to illustrate. They should not be abandoned lightly or carelessly. In fact we need to see public figures strenuously and energetically defending and promoting them - what I think has recently been called in another context, "unexpected push-back".

In 1675 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, made a celebrated speech to the House of Lords during the debate on the case of Shirley v. Fagg, a jurisdictional dispute about whether the House of Lords could hear appeals from lower courts when the case involved members of the House of Commons. He used the opportunity to press home some Constitutional principles, that still have pertinence today. (1)

It had already been outlined in a popular pamplet of 15,000 words entitled "A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country." It is still not clear to what extent his secretary, John Locke contributed, or even authored it completely. It certainly fits the outlook and style of his later writings on the constitution published anonymously in 1689. Indeed the "friend in the country" might well have been Locke himself, utilized as a literary device.  

He rejected any attempt to limit the judicial power of the House of Lords, in modern parlance as 'the thin end of the wedge' or perhaps 'the start of a slippery slope'. In either case he argued that if successful, the rights of the common man would be equally damaged, because it would allow autocratic rule: rule by force rather than law.

Shaftesbury argued that every king could only rule either through the nobility or through a standing army; thus, this attempt to restrict the power of the nobility was part of a plot to rule the country through military might and force of arms.

He challenged the fact that the Bishops were attempting to establish the principle of the 'Divine Right of Kings' - that they obtained their authority from God not law, and could not be opposed - that had been central to the bloody Civil War only thirty years previous. 

Divine Right of Kings and Royal Succession by Arianna Tsikitas on Prezi

If this were the case he argued, "our Magna Charta is of no force, our Laws are but Rules amongst our selves during the Kings pleasure" and "All the Properties and Liberties of the People, are to give away, not onely to the interest, but the will and pleasure of the Crown."

Parts of the speech ring like a clarion call to our present age and situation where we have witnessed the House of Lords being filled with placemen and placed under direct threat to accede to Government demands. Could this have ever been better demonstrated by the unprecedented and ominous presence of the Prime Minister at one recent sitting? (See image at top) (2)

Then there have been political tampering with the unelected membership to one of political nomination - demolition with no clear plan for an alternative. The historic role and functions of the Lord Chancellor have been split and changed so that the holder no longer even requires a law degree to fill it, with the holder held in contempt by all. (5) Of course it is only a small step to holding the law itself in contempt.

The Lord Chancellor with Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice to her right and left.,1511,67,106&resize=600

Then the House of Lords has been stripped of its ultimate judicial appeal function which has been transferred to a new 'Supreme Court", obviously more expensive by far, with a hint of artificiality and the synthetic about it. But note even it had to complain recently that the 'Lord Chancellor' failed to support it. Note the slippery slope?

So we return to Lord Shaftesbury's thesis which is being borne out by current events, even to the extent of as the law is being undermined so we see the appearance of plans to put soldiers on the streets,(3) the arming of the police (4) and the increasingly casual use of tasers and guns, often with fatal results, in preference to arrest. Nor is his telling phrase, "If you grow useless, you will quickly grow burdensome." Having emasculated its functions and compromised its independence, many use this as an argument for its abolition and only one house of legislature.

The Supreme Court

"My Lords, to these give me leave in the first place to say, that this Matter is no less than Your whole Judicature, and Your Judicature is the life and soul of the Dignity of the Peerage of England, you will quickly grow burdensome, if you grow useless, you have now the greatest and most useful end of Parliament principally in you, which is not to make new Laws but to redress Grievances, and to Maintain the Old Land-Marks. The House of Commons’ Business is to complain, Your Lordships’ to redress, not only the Complaints from them that are the Eyes of the Nation, but all other particular persons that address to You. 


A Land may Groan under a Multitude of Laws I believe Ours does, and when Laws grow so multiplied, they prove oftener Snares, than Directions and Security to the People. I look upon it as the ignorance and weakness of the latter Age, if not worse, the effect of the Designes of ill men; that it is grown a general opinion, that where there is not a particular direction in some Act of Parliament the Law is defective, as if the Common Law had not provided much better, Shorter, and Plainer for the Peace and Quiet of the Nation than intricate, long, and perplexed Statutes do: which has made Work for the Lawyers, given power to the Judges, lessened Your Lordships’ Power, and in a good measure unhinged the security of the People." 

Does that ring any bells today?

What we face is a sort resurgence of the antique concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" - or variation of it, except we have to replace the theological with the practical, and the 'King' with 'State'. Power has become concentrated no longer in the Sovereign but in political place holders, or even more sinisterly, those nameless and faceless people and institutions that actually dictate and control events - what Queen Elizabeth herself (if the source can be believed) referred to as, powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” (7) 

In other words a bureaucratic totalitarianism against which the law and its institutions are so enfeebled as to provide no bulwark against the despotism of private power and interest. This is a long game, but there are unmistakable signs that someone is playing it. As Lord Shaftesbury said in 1675 (again) 

"In a word, if this Doctrine be true, our Magna Charta is of no force, our Laws are but Rules amongst ourselves during the King’s pleasure. 

Monarchy, if of Divine Right, cannot be bounded or limited by human Laws, nay, what’s more, cannot bind itself; and All our Claims of right by the Law, or Constitution of the Government, All the Jurisdiction and Priviledge of this House, All the Rights and Priviledges of the House of Commons, All the Properties and Liberties of the People, are to give way, not only to the interest, but the will and pleasure of the Crown. 

And the best and worthiest of Men, holding this principle, must Vote to deliver up all we have, not only when reason of State, and the separate Interest of the Crown require it, but when the will and pleasure of the King is known, would have it so. For that must be, to a man of that principle, the only rule and measure of Right and Justice. 

Therefore, my Lords, you see how necessary it is, that our Principles be known, and how fatal to us all it is, that this Principle should be suffered to spread any further." There is a need to restate the constitutional fundementals of this country if we are to be spared the very real dangers.

"The King governing and administering Justice by His House of Lords, and advising with both His Houses of Parliament in all important matters, is the Government I own, am born under, and am obliged to. 

If ever there should happen in future ages (which God forbid) a King governing by an Army, without His Parliament, ’tis a Government I own not, am not obliged to, nor was born under. 

According to this Principle, every honest man that holds it, must endeavour equally to preserve the frame of the Government, in all the parts of it, and cannot satisfie his Conscience to give up the Lords House for the Service of the Crown, or to take away the just rights and priviledges of the House of Commons to please the Lords."

There are those that believe we are passing through hazardous times. The Sovereign and Consort must, if natural laws apply, must be reaching the end of their tenure and this will involve instability as has been envisaged theatrically, recently transferred to television and a much wider audience. (6) 'BREXIT' that will dominate the political agenda for the foreseeable future, offers both opportunities and risks. We are passing through so called 'terrorist and propaganda events' that shout fraudulence to secure the sort of changes referred to above. Any weakening of institutions and laws that enshrine the historic freedoms and rights, for which this country has been justly proud, requires the greatest suspicion and opposition.

Only thirteen years after he made the speech, after great political upheaval, referred to as "the Glorious Revolution", the relationship between Sovereign and Parliament was codified and agreed in accordance with Shaftesbury's objectives, although he didn't survive to see it. In 1682 he had to flee the country but immediately fell ill and died only a few months later in Amsterdam. His efforts, with the largely secret support of his amanuensis, the philosopher John Locke, had lasting effect, that we should cherish and protect. 

I believe that despite the passage of over three hundred years and a transformed technological and sociological environment, he would recognise many of the same political dangers and the need to resist them.

The full speech is here:








Friday, 12 May 2017

Is America planning a first nuclear strike on Russia?

If so, why is possible nuclear annihilation in Europe NOT a current political issue?

The following article is re-posted from:

Are You Ready to Die?

Are You Ready to Die?
BY - Paul Craig Roberts
In George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel, 1984, information that no longer is consistent with Big Brother’s explanations is chucked down the Memory Hole. In the real American dystopia in which we currently live, the information is never reported at all.
On April 26—16 days ago—Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces, stated at the Moscow International Security Conference that the Operations Command of the Russian General Staff has concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia.
The Times-Gazett in Ashland, Ohio, was the only US print media that a Google search could turn up that reported this most alarming of all announcements. A Google search turned up no reports on US TV, and none on Canadian, Australian, European, or any other media except RT and Internet sites.
I have been unable to find any report that any US Senator or Representative or any European, Canadian, or Australian politician has raised a voice of concern.
No one in Washington got on the telephone to tell Putin that this was all a mistake, that the US was not preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia, or ask Putin how this serious situation could be defused.
Americans do not even know about it, except for my readers.

I would have expected at least that the CIA would have planted the story in the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR that General Poznihir was expressing his personal opinion, nothing to be taken seriously. But apparently Americans and their European vassals are not to even know that such an accusation was made.
As I reported some time ago and more recently in my column about North Korea, the Chinese leadership has also concluded that the US intends a nuclear first strike against China.
Alone either Russia or China can destroy the US. If they act together, the destruction of the US would be redundant. What is the intelligence, if any, and morality, clearly none, of the US leadership that recklessly and irresponsibly invites Russia and China to preempt Washington’s attack on them with an attack on the US?
Surely not even insouciant Americans are so stupid as to think that Russia and China will just sit there and wait for Washington’s nuclear attack.
I lived through every stage of the Cold War. I participated in it. Never in my life have I experienced the situation where two nuclear powers were convinced that the third was going to surprise them with a nuclear attack.
I supported Trump because he, unlike Hillary, said he would normalize relations with Russia. Instead he has raised the tensions between the nuclear powers. Nothing is more irresponsible or dangerous.
We currently are in the most dangerous situation of my lifetime, and there is ZERO AWARENESS AND NO DISCUSSION!
A US Air Force strategic air command (SAC) B-52 stratofortress drops a string of 750-pound bombsGETTY IMAGES:
How can this be? Putin has been issuing warnings for years. He has told the Western presstitute media on more than one occasion that they, in their dishonesty, are pushing the world to nuclear war. Putin has said over and over, “I issue warnings and no one hears.” “How do I get through to you?”
Maybe the morons will hear when mushroom clouds appear over Washington and New York, and Europe ceases to exist, as it will if Europe continues the confrontation with Russia as is required from Washington’s well-paid vassals.
Within the last several years I reported the Chinese government’s reaction to US war plans for a nuclear strike on China. The Chinese showed how their submarines would destroy the West Coast of the US and their ICBMs would finish off the rest of the country.
I reported all of this, and it produced no response. The Memory Hole wasn’t needed, as neither Washington nor the presstitutes nor the Internet noticed. This is insouciance to the thousandth degree.
In America and its subservient, crawling on their knees vassal states, the information never gets reported, so it never has to be put down the Memory Hole.
If you convince someone that you are going to kill them, they are going to kill you first. A government, such as what exists in Washington, that convinces powerful countries that they are targeted, is a government that has no respect whatsoever for the lives of its own people or the peoples of the world or for any life on planet Earth.
Such a government as Washington is evil beyond all measure, as are the media whores and European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states that serve Washington at the expense of their own citizens.
Despite all their efforts to believe otherwise, the Russian and Chinese leaderships have finally arrived, belatedly, at the realization that Washington is evil to the core and is the agent of Satan.
For Russia and China, the Satanic Evil that rules in the West has reduced the choice for Russia and China to them or us.