Saturday, 30 May 2015


Why are international treaties routinely ignored? Why don't governments admit to the unsavoury truth? Because nation/states are sovereign and cannot be compelled to keep their word. Mind you, find me a government that ADMITS to breaking treaties and admitting to faults. There is a deep and persistent hypocrisy in international affairs, mirroring the societies in which we live. Perhaps even our individual lives. How many could cope with absolute transparency without blushing at least? Like the words of Jack Nicholson in 'A Few Good Men', based it said on factual events, "You couldn't COPE with the truth."

In relation to Britain at least, and it clearly is not the only country at fault, it has over the years, attempted to address the societal problems of poverty, inadequate parenting, child abuse and abandonment. At first this was almost exclusively the province of charities, that increasingly developed into a state function as a result of measures passed by parliament. I think the intention was good but the practice was far from perfect, resulting in many children desperately requiring protection being failed, whilst others were removed from parent(s) needlessly and thus subjecting them to greater harm, when a modicum of practical or financial assistance may have prevented it.
A state may have its emblems and ritual (as we have recently been reminded in the State Opening of Parliament) but it has no corporeal existence other than buildings, employees and policies. Government in practice cannot be friendly, helpful or empathetic. Only people do this and we have to accept that true philanthropy is a very rare commodity.

We are all primarily, and sadly, selfish, which as Richard Dawkins claimed some years ago is actually biologically programmed. 
('The Selfish Gene' see: . 
However we must set against this all the heroic examples of people that have devoted their lives selflessly to a good cause or actually sacrificed themselves for compatriots or the greater good in war and peace. For a relevant example I give you the McMillan sisters here:  still a shining example of what true philanthropy looks like.

Unfortunately it was/is not always easy to identify those who pretend to philanthropy and selflessness as 'sheepskin' to cover their true character and intent or of distinguishing between between the fraud and genuine article. The people charged with the job of deciding, were far too often easily fooled by manipulative and plausible individuals and more concerned with their own pension and career, or worse refused to see what was staring them in the face. As we have seen with Hampstead it is often far easier to 'blame the victim' and shut them up, than it is to face the enormity of the problem of dealing with the implications.

So states are by definition unfeeling and even dangerous - far more dangerous in fact than the 'terrorist' we are constantly told to fear. Institutions are intrinsically, in whatever form they appear, given to abuse. Whilst being appreciative of those carrying out roles we place on them because we have failed ourselves, we have to recognise a significant proportion may seek out the occupations that allow them to take advantage of their position to implement their base passions for sex and domination. And finally, whilst being realistic about the abysmal treatment of children by some parents, often linked to home violence, drink, drugs, prostitution, mental problems or dire poverty, that requires intervention (by the State as what else is there?) we also have to accept that families, even inadequate ones, may be better than the alternative. And that the only real protection from gross injustice is public awareness achieved by as transparent a process as possible, commensurate with the best result for the children.

The British Government is clearly anxious to avoid the reputational damage consequent upon the truth getting out about the parlous state of child care and particularly in respect of high level involvement in the most extreme acts imaginable. This is not supposition. The government has proved it by failing to act in many cases, the latest being Hampstead; by losing, not releasing, disbanding, subjecting to D Notices and long term secrecy records and relevant information; by locking up and/or subjecting to gagging orders those who have attempted to reveal the truth; as in the case of Ella and Sabine, driving them out of the country on pain of detention; attempting to certifying as mentally incapable as with Holly Grieg's mother; creating inquiries with such ludicrous terms of reference that will require "eight years investigation"; intentionally delaying it by suggesting chair-persons they must have known would be unacceptable; timetabling the issue so that it wouldn't impinge on the general election - indeed if the 'UK Column' is correct there was a tacit agreement between the parties to keep it quiet; and statements by Cameron and Gove that it was "time to move on". How else can we interpret the legislation passed by our 'Justice Secretary' Jack Straw, making it ILLEGAL for children in care to speak out publicly even about their mistreatment?

However I am not sure they counted on the world-wide impact of, for the first time, two small children telling their story in all its grim reality. It cannot be 'retracted'. It is out there and can never be retrieved or covered up on a 'bad news day' - or 'spun'. It is the 'elephant in the room'. It is the 'light at the end of the tunnel' that happens to be the oncoming express! It is 'terror in the night and the arrow that flies by day'.

Mr Cameron must choose: either take the part of the children or be condemned by them. Hampstead is literally and metaphorically on his 'doorstep'. It will not go away. He cannot claim to be ignorant of it and it will define his reputation if he doesn't act decisively and honourably.

What's that Jesus said? "I tell you, if there is silence, the very stones will cry out!"END.

Thursday, 28 May 2015


May 28, 2015 at 4:41 am I will endeavour to answer your question as best I can.

As an introduction, I have just read a report in the Times by David Sanderson of a talk by Diamaid MacCulloch (who I take to be a Scot who has come south!!!), 'an Oxford Professor and TV presenter' and Deacon in the Church of England (His profile can be found here:
regarding the western obsession with sex and the effect this may have on the view taken of us by other religions and cultures around the world. His specialism is the history of the church, though he has declined ordination because he disagreed with the CoE's position on gay marriage, influenced no doubt by his personal leanings on the matter. Whether we agree with 'gay marriage' and think it 'biblical' or not, I doubt anyone could challenge his main assertion at Hay, that Western culture is dominated by sex in all its aspects, and that this is one of the biggest issues fuelling antipathy and even violence between religions of the world. Whereas the west, increasingly from Freud onwards, has seen sexual honesty as a beneficial aspect of individual 'freedom', others have seen it as an indicator of moral turpitude and cultural decline.

Where we stand on this spectrum is greatly influenced by our personal belief system, that draws from two thousands of years of human thinking dominated by acceptance of a supernatural being to which has been ascribed different names through time. This is now challenged by many, particularly in Europe. Whether believing in a universe of incorporeal spirits, or convinced that it works to scientific laws without the need for them, most humans ascribe to some sort of moral behaviour, which in its simplest form, comes down to 'doing unto others as you would be done by'. Human actions both east and west fall short of this standard. How are we to decide overall which is better or worse?

Sex is an activity and proclivity that is 'hard-wired' not only into humans but the whole of organic life on earth. In other words it is a natural and irresistible force that is not going away. Perhaps uniquely, humans have developed intricate and complicated social rules governing how it can be exercised and controlled using custom and ritual to confirm and standardise - and woe betide those that break the rules. The shibboleths and taboos are curiously both consistent and various, reflecting the shared acceptance of the power of the sexual urge and its potential to inflict both personal and societal damage.

This affects such things as relationships before and after 'marriage'; the acceptable age at which sexual relations might begin; the acceptance of age difference in relationship; the attitude to physical mutilation, pregnancy, child-birth and abortion; and same-sex relationship, to mention just a few.

As MacCulloch points out, the sea change in western attitudes can be traced to the 18th C. 'Enlightenment', accelerating perhaps in the last half century. It may be characterised as 'traditional' versus 'modern' views of human behaviour and the corresponding weight given to personal freedom as against imposed societal rules? In any event, the clash can have far reaching and disastrous consequences for individuals - being shunned, excluded or even injured or killed.

We are familiar with so called 'honour killings', of male and female genital mutilation, of child marriages and under-aged births, of the mistreatment of women and homosexuals in predominantly other cultures that the West vociferously decries; whilst conveniently and hypocritically passing over the issue of aborted foetuses, rampant venereal disease, the huge market for porn and child abuse, family breakdown, an epidemic of low self-esteem and self-destructive behaviours, and the general issue of the treatment of children, of which Hampstead is the latest and perhaps most flagrant, example. It is not long since it was standard policy to forcibly remove babies from unmarried women to either be placed for adoption, or transportation or be allowed to die in Catholic so-called nursing homes. The horrors continue today with human trafficking and the abuse of children, on perhaps wider scale than ever before.

Both east and west we take an ambivalent, even contradictory, approach to sexual activity, on the one hand expecting full disclosure by our public figures, whilst expecting the opposite for ourselves; of enjoying and supporting 'gay' entertainment figures, yet being shocked when we learn of their actual behaviour; holding to religious beliefs whilst turning a blind eye to abuse by its leaders and institutions; secretly being as interested in prurience whilst claiming to condemn it; maintaining an inconsistent public persona to actual or fantasy life in private. Sadly, outward religious observance is no guarantee of inward sanctity. An approach to personal sexual proclivities that best left them undisturbed and uninquired into, may have contributed to the reluctance to publicise activities by public figures that crossed the boundaries of what anyone could regard as acceptible.

Christianity is of course only one of at least five major religions and many other 'smaller' ones, but it has had a huge and ascendant impact on European culture and its off-shoots around the world by virtue of empire - Roman, Holy Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, American and others. When we refer to 'Christian' we mean initially 'Roman Catholic' for about the first fifteen hundred years, until politics, science and theology forged a great divide. What started as a theological rebellion with Luther was reinforced by the scientific and political one with Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Locke and others. We have never been the same since. Better or worse, you decide.

Galileo first undermined the Church's view on the centrality of the earth in the cosmic scheme of things, and by extension, man in God's plan; Descartes questioned the existence of the soul and everything revealed free of reason; Newton provided an explanation of the cosmos that relied on mathematics rather than divine intervention; Locke provided a rationale for representative government and the primacy of analytical empiricism wherever it might lead. Meanwhile advances in anatomy and physiology began to remove mysticism from medicine.

Then the biblical view of creation was fundamentally challenged by people like Lyle and Darwin by suggesting that the universe was much older than the Old Testament version of creation and the human race was not only closely linked to the animal kingdom but might actually have evolved from it! So the great divide between science and religion opened up and has not been convincingly bridged since. However it was not really until the arrival of Freud and his psycho-analytical friends, that the individual human being's view of himself was fully challenged, in his suggestion that man, rather than being the epitome of logic and reason, was in fact controlled by 'sub-conscious' processes and instincts, of which he had little cognisance.

These, and other views by Jung and others on the 'collective unconscious' and the mystical, had a profound effect on thinking and energised the new subjects of psychology and psychiatry and the army of its students, researchers and proponents. Pavlov and Skinner were able to prove that humans were, like dogs, pigeons and rodents, subject to fundamental rules of conditioning that led to discredited theories of eugenics and mind control such as 'MKUltra' much discussed in connection with the abuse of adults and children to create something akin to the well-known 'Jason Bourne' character.

One of the things that most shocked the public in this new Freudian universe was the predominant role of sex in motivation, pleasure and behaviour and particularly in that of the child. Although in Victorian Britain child prostitution was widespread and commonplace, it was also unacknowledged and shameful in polite society. Freud challenged the notion of the innocence of the child and suggested that sexual urges and attraction started much earlier. Others, such as Jean Piaget in France, used his own children to document phases of development in children, including their sexual development.

I am not sure we have yet come to terms with what is known about sexual activity in humans, either pre or post puberty. There is still a reluctance to admit the facts or implications, perhaps best illustrated by the attitude of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's, who prim and proper about the subject, refused to approve a proper scientific survey of attitudes and behaviour, yet was happy to countenance leading members of her personal staff, ministers and intelligence service, not to mention her predecessor, were deeply involved in child abuse and cover-up. This is the hypocrisy that still has the potential to rock the very foundations of the political system.

It provides part of the reason why the the police, and especially Special Branch, acted to close down anything that got close to revealing the truth, whilst doing nothing to stop what was going on. It has been alleged that Prime Ministers much closer to us in time were similarly protected from potentially damaging revelations and that many MP's were secretly kept in line by Whips, who were party to the indiscretions. So gradually as the full extent of the perversion and corruption leaks out, possibly with the assistance of foreign governments anxious to benefit, so our respect for our politicians and institutions continues to decline, from which no one is exempt.

However we must be careful we don't find ourselves in some sort of hypocritical bind here. Often those that have been in the forefront of protests, have themselves been guilty of indiscreet or questionable personal behaviour. 'Those in greenhouses' and all that jazz! What I think we must aim for, is an honest acceptance and understanding of human sexuality, without all the imposed religiously inspired hang-ups and impositions. Ignorance and secrecy only encourages abuse. This is not to say that education in this area should be value or constraint free. I am of the opinion that to teach the physiology of reproduction, without the ethical and social imperatives and consequences, borders on the the negligent. Previous generations got by without it and somehow discovered what they needed to know, but we must also acknowledge this this was at the largely unquantified cost in foetuses and children abandoned, young people abused against their will, and the mountain of psychological pain and injury that has ensued.

We still haven't got the balance right and Hampstead is eloquent proof of it. Even where convincingly revealed, our enforcing and judicial systems fail abysmally, even it might be argued, criminally. We need to be persistent and unflinching when investigating and understanding how such a situation, with the backing of a wholly discredited BBC in particular, can still be happening?
The alleged events at Hampstead are profoundly disturbing because of the nature and extent of the abuse to young children, children that had no choice but to comply, and when finally revealing have been treated so shabbily.

So to return to your original question 'truth1now', my position is with Queen Elizabeth I, to refrain to look into men's souls. A freedom to believe sincerely what one wishes and to express the same without fear of recrimination by government, is fundamental to the modern democratic state. Sadly it appears this government, to its shame, is intent on attacking the principle and limiting the freedom, whilst increasing its own powers of surveillance.

Nevertheless I believe that if and when these beliefs stray over into irrational and damaging behaviours, particularly if they threaten the life or well-bing of vulnerable children, we have a duty to challenge it and prevent it. Belief in God is a personal matter. In the words of Jesus, it is to be judged first and foremost by its 'fruits' or outcomes. It can, as we have seen particularly with the Catholic Church – though not exclusively – be a cover for serious abuse but it has also resulted in much humanising good. In contrast I believe 'Satanism' and its collaterals as defined, are intrinsically dangerous, extolling as they do a warped and irrational view of the world and the exploitation of its adherents, permitting and even encouraging sexual activity disconnected from a natural empathy or over-riding ethical position. If ever there was a belief system contrary to every progress humans have made over the last five hundred years, this is it.

Sexuality when properly understood, can only operate acceptably within a framework of informed consent and consideration for the partner, clearly absent in the circumstances described believably by the Hampstead children and thereby to be censured and deplored.

I am not sure I have answered your question truth1now now but I’ve certainly wandered round it! Apologies everyone.END.

Sunday, 17 May 2015

The ‘Problem’ of ‘Inconvenient’ Laws

“Prime Minister we appear to have a problem –  an agency of ours appears to have broken the law.” “Easy, Minister of Justice. Just change the law – but best not tell anyone, don’t you think?”

Two claimed quotes (unreliably) ascribed to Adolf Hitler might nevertheless apply to present government approach to law making and objectives:

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.(1)

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.(2)

The situation is well summarised in an article by Alexander J Martin in 'The Register' on 15th May, 2015.

"Government legislation to exempt GCHQ from prosecution on charges of illegal hacking has been passed and come into effect – apparently torpedoing an ongoing claim against the surveillance agency being heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Last July, a coalition of internet service providers and international organisations teamed up with Privacy International to take legal action against GCHQ.  Their claim, which has arrived in court today, has been hobbled by what they say is the revelation that the Government had quietly ushered through legislation amending the Computer Misuse Act to exempt GCHQ and law enforcement from prosecution, and did so whilst the case was ongoing.

Privacy International says it was notified of this change only yesterday. The campaigners complain that as the legislative change occurred during the process of their action under that very legislation, proper consideration of the court’s time meant that they should have been informed. The amendment to the Computer Misuse Act was written into law on March 3 of this year, after being introduced on June 6 of last. Privacy International complain that its opaque language and the extraordinarily limited range of stakeholders which were consulted allowed the legislation to slip under the radar."

"The explanatory notes that accompanied the act make no reference to the true impact of the change. It appears no NGOs, Regulators, RIPA Commissioners, the Information Commissioners Office, Industry, or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes. There was no published Privacy Impact Assessment. Only the Ministry of Justice, Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office, GCHQ, Police and National Crime Agency were consulted as stakeholders. There was no public debate.” (3)

In Britain we are told we are governed ‘according to law’, and that the ‘rule of law’ is supreme, succinctly summarised by Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733 in his statement, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”   

"These words were quoted by Lord Denning, probably the most celebrated English judge of the 20th century, in a case brought by John Gouriet in 1977 when the Attorney-General refused to give him consent to institute special legal proceedings to injunct the Union of Post Office Workers from boycotting all postal communications between Britain and South Africa as such actions would constitute criminal offences under the Post Office Act 1953.

"When the Attorney-General argued that his discretion was absolute and not subject to judicial review, Lord Denning pointedly had this to say:
“…What is to be done about it? Are the courts to stand idly by? Is the Attorney-General to be the final arbiter whether the law should be enforced or not? ”
"It is a matter of great constitutional principle. If the Attorney-General refuses to give his consent to the enforcement of the criminal law, then any citizen in the land can come to the courts and ask that the law be enforced. Denning continued;
“…This is an essential safeguard; for were it not so, the Attorney-General could, by his veto, saying ‘I do not consent’, make the criminal law of no effect. Confronted with a powerful subject whom he feared to offend, he could refuse his consent time and time again. Then that subject could disregard the law with impunity. It would indeed be above the law. This cannot be permitted. “To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you’…” (4)
Denning could not have stated the principle more clearly. If Government Law Officers attempt to block or subvert private criminal prosecutions by the citizen, they are limited by the prevailing statutory or common law. In the light of recent decisions not to prosecute even where the DPP has decided there is a clear case, it may require testing yet again.

However to be considered valid, it is important that the law is created only by due process in an open and constitutional manner and that it does not impinge on or negate long-standing or fundamental principles. Nor should law be created by statute by some secretive process or feint of hand. This is why the preceding process of open consultation, and the many stages legislation must pass through is so important. It may be considered inconvenient by government but it is absolutely fundamental to the credibility of the law, the rights of the citizen and ultimately the moral foundations of the state. It is summarised in the following quote:

"Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that government authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps. The principle of the rule of law is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable and must apply equally to all. It must also afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights. It is the independent and impartial holder of the Office of Constable who is tasked with upholding and enforcing the law.” (5)

What we have seen over perhaps the last two decades, implemented by both leading political parties, is a whittling away of fundamental freedoms and protections by a thousand tiny cuts, in much the way our friend Adolf envisaged. It has seen its denouement in the current stated intention to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that Britain itself was instrumental in setting up in 1950. If at all possible the proposal has been topped by Prime Minister Cameron’s extraordinary intention to run a coach and horses through the principle of the ‘Rule of Law’ insofar as he has stated his government will treat those that question official versions of events as “terrorists”, with all the implications that includes, and will expect the police to intervene even where the law has not been broken. If ever there was a recipe for tyranny this is it. The actual reported statements are worth reproducing yet again if only to impress on everyone the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in. The fact that he did not loose the election on these alone shows just how far down ‘Adolf’s Road’ we have come.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.”

“For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons.”  (6)

And more recently,

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.” (7)

Notice how he uses the ‘Rule of Law’ and other enshrined constitutional principles to actually subvert it and them? We cannot allow him to pull off this trick yet again or we shall find ourselves where the German people did eighty years ago.

Following the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, the British shaped an EU data retention directive, adopted the following year, allowing the capture and storage of electronic communications. But last April the European Court of Justice struck down the directive as in breach of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights. How far the newly established British Supreme Court is able to do the same, namely to strike down legislation on the grounds that it was enacted unconstitutionally has never been properly tested. The principle is that Parliament is supreme and may enact or repeal what it likes. However there is also a line of thought that there are limits to that power imposed by the Constitution itself,  such as, in this anniversary year, the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights beside others established principles at Common Law or by international treaty such as the EC law or the HCHR.

This Government quote tries to clarify the existing position: 

It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. Many of the examples seen in the media, or commented on by politicians, tend to focus on criminal matters or on Human Rights, but there are many other examples of judicial oversight enabling the State to redress unforeseen outcomes of its own legislation. It is however wrong to suggest that the judiciary can, using the Human Rights Act 1998, overturn legislation. That Act only permits the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords/Supreme Court to declare legislation to be incompatible with the Convention rights. A declaration of incompatibility does not strike down legislation or remove it from the statute book, as is the case in some jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court can declare that legislation is not valid law because it is unconstitutional. Declarations of incompatibility under the 1998 Act, however, leave the validity of the particular law intact. They simply require Parliament to consider amending the law to render it compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ultimate decision remains with Parliament and not the judiciary. Ultimately, the judiciary does no more, or less, under the 1998 Act than carry out its constitutional function of interpreting and applying the law enacted by Parliament. They only have such power as Parliament gave them in the Human Rights Act 1998.” (8)

Perhaps in this context, legislation passed without proper advertisement or consultation to retrospectively protect the government from criminal prosecution might come within that category? For this to happen someone competent will need to institute an application for Judicial Review. In the meantime, the public needs to be made aware if they are to make it clear to our law makers 'up with this we will not put'! END.




(4) This is taken from




Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Tim Veater.

Beware the weasel words of a politician – even of the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. At BEST we might label this proposal with Virgil’s: “facilis descensus Averno” (“the descent to hell is easy”) or our own “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. At WORST, this is yet another intentional and sinister measure, to continue the transformation of Britain into a militarised, police state, of which we have many obvious signs on our streets and against which we should all be united. It is in the nature of politicians to say positive things but intend negative consequences.

To ‘sweeten the pill’ we note that only the guilty ‘bad men’ will be targeted and that these just happen to be those nasty Muslims again. The wholly concocted ‘war on terror’ is used to justify it, despite all that we now know of the criminal conspiracy of 9/11 and subsequent illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, that has resulted in chaos and mass murder in both countries and elsewhere.

Mr Cameron has made his world view and rationale for these proposed new measures clear on a world stage. On the 25th September 2014 in his his closing speech to the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly he said this:

“I want to focus on … the mortal threat we all face from the rise of ISIL. The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations."

“We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal on-line material like the recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons.” He also refers to the necessity of increased police powers to do this. (For the full speech see:
Of course he failed to mention the very existence of so called ISIL (as was ‘Al Qaeda’ before it) is the very child of Western policy, infiltrated, led, armed and financed by them! (See:

It should be noted that despite Tony Blair’s general disgrace regarding his actions in support of George Bush at the beginning of the 21st Century, and Cameron’s dismissal of him, it would be impossible to get a credit card between them on the issue. Much was made of how Cameron aped Blair in style and content, of which this is but the latest example. The trends in both domestic and international spheres were initiated by Blair and continued by Cameron. Rather amazing when we are led to believe they come from opposing political philosophies.

The fact of the matter is that across the Western World we are seeing imposed a wholly artificial narrative, specifically created by a group of American ‘Neo/Cons’, with oil and currency at their root, following an essentially Israeli master plan, that has plunged the world into one of its most potentially dangerous phases since Cuba. (See ‘Plan Dalet’ here: and as regards Yemen this:,7340,L-4641659,00.html)

Cameron has made his support for Israel very clear. In a speech to the Knesset in March 2014, to which he received a standing ovation, he said his belief in Israel was “unbreakable” and that he felt “some sense of connection” to Israel due to his “relatively limited” Jewish ancestry. This would all be well and good if it were not for the implications. An unbalanced attitude to the possession of nuclear weapons (he said Britain would not allow Iran to get them whilst ignoring Israel’s) and military action in the area.
In a recent (28.4.15) interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Cameron defended Israel’s bombing of civilian areas of Gaza. He said Israel was right to defend itself in the face of “indiscriminate” attacks in Gaza last summer, and drew a moral distinction between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli Government. Of course the British Government’s silence over the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza at the time was deafening, and led to the resignation of Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi, who said the Government’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had been “morally indefensible and not “in Britain’s national interest”. Rather interestingly, the West’s attention was somewhat deflected by the crash of MH17 over Ukraine, incorrectly blamed on the Russians, within minutes of the Gaza assault.

So if we return to the proposal for new legislation, we can see where it is coming from. The un-stated primary intention is to stop the internet being used to disseminate damaging leaks and analysis of government that undermine this dominant stance. We have all seen how recent legislation, promoted and passed for the most rational and sensible of reasons, is used and misused to limit free speech, whistle blowing and protest. Under ‘anti-terrorism legislation’, old men have been arrested for speaking up, police and local authorities have illegally pried and accessed phone records, there has been a crack-down on papers and alternative outlets, journalists have been purged, the BBC intimidated, GCHQ has exceeded its remit, Assange, Snowden and others have paid the price for letting us know what is going on, there are mysterious deaths a plenty of those who sought to bring us the truth of 9/11 and other nefarious activities of government. Harassment legislation has actually been used against victims of abuse to shut them up, the police, courts and prisons are gradually being transformed by stealth to serve private and not public interests, the police in Scotland has already been armed and amalgamated under effectively a one party state and moves have already been made to do the same in England. Our armed forces have been decimated, whilst a legally unqualified person has been appointed to the post of Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.

No doubt Mr Cameron has been emboldened by his latest victory and his five-year security by virtue of another very questionable amendment to our constitution. Yet he should remember he is there despite 75% of the eligible electorate NOT voting for him and WE should remember to distinguish between polemic and truth. The general population must make clear it is not taken in by his oratory and reasoning and is prepared to defend to the last the ancient rights and freedoms that are the inalienable inheritance of the British citizen.