Nazis in the BBC's Closet?

I know the BBC is nothing more than a conduit for the government's ideological sewage but I was still alarmed at the way someone in the BBC is stirring-up racial differences in Britain by highlighting that madman, Enoch Powell's, Rivers of Blood speech as it did today.

Why does the BBC have to keep on digging-up this stuff from the sewers of the British psyche? Is it the BBC's intention to revive Powell as some sort of martyred national hero in the eyes of a generation that has little or no memory of the racial strife and persecution this country went through in the 'sixties and more particularly under that very-British fascist, Margaret Thatcher?

How many black people have died and suffered at the hands of British white supremacists already? Is it the BBC's hope that they should be joined by many more in a Britain torn apart with economic and social turmoil?

As one who migrated to these islands nearly 50 years ago, I must say it in public: thanks to the BBC I have been made to feel like a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Ol' Macky's Back in Town

Oh yes, there are certainly Nazis inside the BBC as there are in this abomination of a Nu Labor government and the Tories who are deliberately seeking to stir-up racial and nationalist turmoil with the intention of creating unrest and lawlessness so that they have an excuse to declare martial law and replace parliament altogether with a dictatorship.


The old-time Socialist, Louis Armstrong, knew exactly what he was singing about, warning the USA of McCarthyite, fascist racism!

I have said it many times before: Britain today is in a similar state to the last days of the German Weimar Republic when the Nazis were already taking over. The government has already scape-goated British Muslims as its surrogate Jews (a different slant on the traditional anti-semitism if you will). Already, anti-war campaigners are being persecuted by Britain's men-in-black. Thatcher destroyed the Trade Unions and turned Britain plc into one, vast concentration-camp.

Those who blame it all on "Europe" clearly have no idea of the domestic origins of the British police state. And while chattering on about 'national sovereignty' they forget that not only is the idea of a nation-state a feudal, capitalist concept but that any sovereignty the people had --and in imperialist Britain they never did have any-- has been superseded by a fascist state masquerading as a democracy.

And now, the BBC quite calculatedly revives the spectre of racism. It's clear to this new Jew why it is they're doing it ..

Edward Thompson and the Growth of Britain's Police State

Dipping into the late Edward Thompson's Writing by Candlelight it begins to become clear how Britain has become an embryonic police state without any serious opposition by the libertarian/left. It also becomes clear that the destruction of freedoms has come not from either that section of the population or from Marxist subversives but from the authoritarian tendencies of the British establishment itself.

Thompson wrote of this trend to the police state during the latter years of Labour's Callaghan premiership. Things were still building-up to Thatcher's final showdown with the British labour movement, peaking in the Miners' Strike of 1984 and their subsequent defeat at the hands of a highly politicized and violent police force. And his warnings came nearly a quarter-century before the quisling Blair who, under orders from Washington DC, implemented 'Anti-Terror' laws which not only scapegoated Muslims but prepared the way for the consolidation of a cosmetically disguised form of totalitarian de facto dictatorship.

Thus in 1979 Thompson was warning us that

the undermining of democracy is certainly going on, and at an inflationary rate. And it is becoming clear from which quarter the wind is blowing. It is blowing from the quarters of ACPO (The Association of Chief Police Officers) and from the barracks of the law-and-order brigade ... not the law-and-order brigade but the defenders of civil liberties are attempting to uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

Writing by Candlelight, p 210

At the time of writing, Thompson wrote of the death whilst in police custody of the protester, Blair Peach. In this context he searches for earlier historical precedents where members of the police force had been found guilty of wilful murder by a coroner's tribunal (see ibid, p. 194). One wonders what Thompson would have had to say about the blatantly wilful murder and subsequent cover-up of the killing of Jean-Charles de Menezes by the notoriously corrupt Metropolitan Police?

Thompson was probably Britain's last radical historian, born in a time when decency and social compassion were still important as political values. It was his generation who fought Hitler and then helped to create the Welfare State, only to see it destroyed forty years later by a peculiarly British form of fascism espoused as 'the free market' by the authoritarian Thatcher and later copied and re-labeled as 'the Third Way' by her New Labour admirer, Tony Blair.

Were it not for Thatcher's victory against the labour movement, 'free market' monetarism and its successor, Blair/Brown's 'neo-liberalism' could never have gained a political foothold, let alone flourished. And it was for precisely that reason the forces of British capitalism had to take on the labour movement and to destroy it. The growing police authoritarianism, endorsed and promoted by the BBC and mainstream media, that Thompson describes in the 'seventies was simply the public face of the eventual coup d'etat against civil liberties that Britain's establishment was preparing its public for.

Thompson emphasises the point by quoting James Anderton, then the chief constable of Manchester, who on a TV programme was asked what was the greatest threat to law and order.

He reassured us that, looking forward 'from a police point of view' to his next ten or fifteen years in the service, he sees no difficulty in dealing with crime, however serious: 'basic crime, as such, theft, burglary, even violent crime, will not be the predominant police feature'. The threat to 'law and order' today comes from 'seditionists', 'political factions whose designed end is to overthrow democracy as we know it' -- persons at work 'in the field of public order', in industrial relations and politics, whose aim is to 'subvert the authority of the state and ... involve themselves in acts of sedition.' That is where he intends, as commander of an 'immense force', to pack his punch.

Writing by Candlelight, pp 209-210

And pack their punch they certainly did under Thatcher's instructions in their brutal despatch of the miners in 1984. The coup d'etat was over, the British police state was born. And under Thatcherism's successor, Tony Blair, it was consolidated and given undreamt-of powers through the pretence of 'Anti-Terror' laws imported into Britain under the behest of the criminal Bush regime. And, resulting from the experiences Britain's rulers had gained in Ireland, ACPO in 1977

decreed that there should be 'a new Public Order Act giving the police power to control marches and demonstrations, similar to police powers in Ulster.'

Writing by Candlelight, p 205

Those powers were readily given it in the Public Order acts of 1986 and 1994 where even the right to remain silent was to be taken as an inference of guilt.

The police in Britain had successfully promoted itself through the constant lobbying of weak politicians into becoming a vastly influential power within the nation.

"As one Chief Inspector has said," writes Thompson, "ACPO "is the one authoritative body the government will go to seek views". (State Research, October 1979).

Today's generation sees the police as an authoritarian force with which it is better not to become involved. Even the colour of its blue uniforms seems to have taken on a darker hue and its peaked caps look more akin to the Gestapo. Not only the younger generation but older ones have, through the experiences of the last three or four decades, come to this conclusion. Gone are the days of the friendly Bobby who would tell you the time or guide old ladies across busy roads. And, if you are a Muslim or a person of colour, you really had better watch your step. The police are likely to be corrupt, dangerous and are certainly not to be trusted.

And yet Thompson reminds us of a time when in Britain it was the police which had to watch its step and not upset the public overmuch.

The angry crowd, in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, could commit depradations -- untiling houses, burning down corn-mills and conventicles, carrying-off waggon-loads of grain, letting off mill-dams, unhorsing police and military -- which makes today's rare affrays look petty.

Writing by Candlelight, p 205

Compare the above to the few peaceful demonstrations that take place in Britain today! The only thing resembling Thompson's descriptions took place in the 1990 Poll Tax Riots or the occasional mid-summer riot. In the Nineteenth Century the British establishment lived in fear of revolution and both the police and the government were obliged to tread carefully. Out of this was born the myth that the Englishman's home was "his castle."

Authoritarian policing was associated with the Prussians or Czarist Russia. In Britain the police were considered to be public servants.

There was a consensus that the British people put a value on freedom and democracy so high that, at the cost of a little inefficiency and certain difficulties in government, the police and army must be kept in their place.

Writing by Candlelight, p 209

There was, as Thompson writes, "a dialectic between notions of law which make up the 'institutions' or traditions [of the individual's freedoms] of this country." Authority, however contemptuous of the angry crowds, was on the defensive as were its police.

By the 1970's all this had changed.

What has been peculiar to Britain, until lately, has not been the fact that we have police but the place into which the police have been put. That is, the police ... have been firmly held in a position subordinate to the elected civil power and have been subjected to certain expectations and rules; and this has been done both by constitutional safeguards and by a continuous running argument turning on precedents and cases, inquests and judgements, in which the public has been one party to the debate.

Writing by Candlelight, p 204

Out of this grew Britain's reputation for being a free country.

For what was remarked upon by foreign observers (including those from Prussia, Russia, and Chicago) over some three hundred years was the peculiar jealousy of the British people towards the central powers of the state, their abhorrence of military intervention in civil affairs, their dislike of state espionage and of any form of heavy policing, their indiscipline and their sensitivity as to the citizen's rights of privacy.

Writing by Candlelight, p 204

Now, it may well be argued that these freedoms were mainly enjoyed by the genteel and not by the ragged poor who might well be transported to penal colonies for attempting to stave off starvation by thieving a loaf of bread or some potatoes. But the point is that those were the values from which were born the myth of the 'freeborn Englishman' who knew how to teach Johnny-foreigner a thing or two. Values which when combined with the Kiplingesque nonsense of "the White Man's Burden" provided Britain its rationale for the colonizing of 'less civilised' races. Hence, Westminster was to be seen as "the Mother of Parliaments", the model for democracy.

Ironic then that it was the Mother of Parliaments which finally caved into the incessant pressures of the law-and-order lobby and allowed the police to gain the pinnacles of authority it enjoys today. Ironic but not surprising if one remembers that, whatever the views of the people might be, the job of Parliament is to carry out the diktats of a capitalism which has travelled a very long road since Victorian reformism to the amoral anarchy of the New World Order's 'neo-liberal' de facto imperialism. The very New World Order that the likes of Anderton foresaw as the goal to be achieved once the 'seditionists' had been finally put down.

In this new order, the police have sought to become not only a national institution but a moral authority. As Thompson warned,

What is alarming today is that the police are attaining to a position in which they can actually manufacture what is offered as 'public opinion', and are offering their occupational needs as a supreme priority beneatch which, not they, but the British public must be put in place ... That is what is new ... What is new is the very powerful public relations operation which disseminates these notions as an authorized, consensual view -- an operation carried on out of our own taxes; which presses its spokesmen forward on every occasion upon the media; which lobbies inquiries and Royal Commissions, constantly pressing for larger powers; which bullies weak Home Secretaries (and boos them when they cross their wishes); which reproves magistrates for lenient sentencing; which announces unashamedly that the police are in the regular practice of breaking judges' rules when interrogating suspects; which slanders unnamed lawyers and lampoons libertarian organizations; which tells judges how they are to interpret the law; and which justifies the invasion of the citizen's privacy and the accumulation of prejudicial and inaccurate records ... This is new. This is formidable.

Writing by Candlelight, pp 200-201

Thompson goes on to observe that as a historian he knew of no other time when the police had had "such a loud and didactic public presence," offering themselves as a distinct interest, even a prime national institution and when politicians and newspaper editors "have submitted so abjectly or ardently to their persuasions." Whilst in power, Thatcher set in motion swingeing cuts in schools, social services, libraries, universities, research, nursery schools, law centres ... everything except police pay and military spending. "She entered our money in a public subscription in support of the priorities of the police."

Thatcher's model for Britain was not just authoritarian, it was of a police state where the police would, in effect, replace the power of the Church to become the new moral authority,

that we should be instructed as to what value we are to put on freedom and democracy, and be instructed by the police. And that the police are to be seen as, somehow, for themselves, rather than as servants to us, so that we are to be instructed by the police as to what is to be our place.

Writing by Candlelight, p 201

When we hear the smug lies emanating from our senior police officers today, of the ongoing 'need for vigilance against terrorists', blah, blah, we can see how the police have 'tuned the pulpits' and replaced the age-old sermons with new sermons of fear. Together with the politicians, their purpose, like religion, of control remains unchanged. And as in the Dark Ages, the screws of their new Inquisition grow tighter.

Certainly 911 and 77 provided the architects of Britain's police state the events to justify the bringing-about of this new Dark Age. Events which look increasingly likely to have been deliberately staged by Britain's secret services in collusion with others in order to bully the public into submission. If two words characterise the method used by the senior politicians, the secret services and the police in order to have brought about this new totalitarianism they are bullying and terrorism. No longer afraid of the public, of the danger of revolution hence the need for reform, our rulers see us as no more than sheep to be controlled and herded around. In the last few years, it is the Muslims that have been used as the scapegoat for the implementation of this new totalitarianism.

But the real enemy, as it has always been, is you, me and democracy.

(To be Continued)

__________

Buy Writing by Candlelight at Amazon

BBC: Big Brother Cooperation

It's a matter of alarm and concern that there are so many people out there who still believe that the BBC is a balanced and fair-minded source of news and current affairs. That belief was, at best ill-founded and at worst, typical of the hypocrisy of a British self-image of decency and fair-mindedness which, through that peculiarly British imperialist institution, the public school, gave succeeding generations the ideological veneer and justification for an unabashed and rapacious colonialism.

So successful were Britain's ruling classes in persuading themselves of their manifest destiny to rule --an ideology which gained serious promotion through Rudyard Kipling's obnoxious caricature of the ruled as being the White Man's burden-- that both Britain's rulers and their ruled came to believe in their own Victorian spin.

It was out of that national hypocrisy that the BBC was born in the twilight decades of Britain's decayed raj when, despite the harsh face of colonialism, a Scottish Presbyterian, Lord Reith, was canny enough to disguise the BBC's real purpose of control through the instilling of elitist values by giving it the motto, "Let Nation Speak Peace Unto Nation"!

Today, in the post-Blair vassal state of a United Kingdom itself in collapse, Reith's motto has become nothing more than an embarrassment for a corporation that is increasingly recognized as being little more than an exclusive conduit for state propaganda. The greater majority of BBC personnel may, as reports suggest, like to consider themselves to be liberal-minded nice guys but the message that Aunty puts out to the world is one of totalitarianism and brazen warmongering.

Its present, wholly one-sided, coverage of the war crime that was the invasion of Iraq and the imperialist occupation of that country and Afghanistan is just a case in point. Another is its calculated avoidance of any mention of the stolen US elections of 2000 and 2004 where the people of the United States were, in effect, hijacked by a group of robber politicians and a corrupt judiciary. Another is its continued promotion of the official Bush-instigated conspiracy theory of 911 and its silence over the extremely suspicious events surrounding that other probable conspiracy, the London bombings of 7 July 2005.

One could keep on with a long list of the BBC's embedded reportage of events emanating as straight spin from the state's sources, both in London and Washington. Keeping out any real, critical political analysis and barring its airwaves to anyone other than the apologists of the British state and its Washington boss, it stubbornly insists on promoting Neocon ideologues such as the unhinged John Bolton who is constantly given BBC airtime long after having been discredited and fired from office.


BBC's 'Bonkers' Bolton

All that is bad enough but the role that the BBC is playing is much worse and far more deceptive than that.

Using anodyne language, innuendo and subtle suggestion, the BBC inverts the reality of affairs by creating an alternative reality and reporting on that instead as the authentic world.

The British media are masters in the art of deceit, they don't distort reality so much as manufacture another version, casually dismissing the truth as an unrepresentative oddity.

Outright deception, delivered in a regular voice and pleasing prose, even and chirpy of tone, triumphs, as honesty is crowded out by the brilliant ruse that presents telling the truth not as the presence of honesty, but the absence of etiquette ..

Kola, Medialens, 28 October 2007

BBC News 24 is the corporation's flagship, satellite broadcaster of news and current affairs, hence given a razzle-dazzle imagery of up-to-date, global news reportage accompanied with the sound of an urgent, authoritative yet vibrant, drumming rhythm heard in every airport departure lounge and hometown settlement across the planet.

But, together with the rest of the corrupt BBC, News 24 is feeding you and me, twenty four seven three sixty-five, what is little more than a carefully packaged, unmitigated lie.

A case in point was News 24's recently broadcast programme in its Our World series, "Do they know who we are?" ostensibly a piece on the rapid growth of electronic surveillance technology but hidden beneath the packaging actually its promotion as something desirable that the majority of people want.

The attention span of the average viewer is no more than a few, brief seconds so the message has got to be put across in the first moments. It is then reinforced over and over with a few variations included such as an opposing view or argument which is then immediately demolished.

So this piece of surveillance promotion starts with a cheerfully upbeat version of the Harry Lime Theme from the Third Man, zither and all. This sets the mood for a positive reaction from the audience. If a negative reaction were required, the music would be appropriately anxious, even disturbing.

Almost immediately a message flashes across the screen: "75% want more security." After some impressive clips showing Silicon Valley scientists predicting the inevitability of increasingly hi-tech surveillance technology we are introduced to the 'product', in this case a Gameboy-like hand-held sensor which can detect the presence of terrorists hiding inside a building whose architecture is predictably Muslim. Even their breathing, we are told, can be sensed through walls by this wonder gadget.

Then, rather cleverly, the reporter takes us to a Muslim community in Forest Gate, London and we are reminded how the police had conducted a heavy-handed raid on "suspect terrorists" last year, leaving one man shot and wounded. If the police had been able to use these sensors, the reporter suggests, perhaps all that would have been avoidable. Makes you think doesn't it?

We are shown a group of Muslims being introduced to this technology by the reporter who, in an apparent concession to his audience, point out that there had been some immediate complaints about the imagery in the promotional video showing Muslim architecture. "But as soon as the audience were shown the technology being used in Iraq they accepted it," he claims.



He picks on a young member of the audience who says, "We don't need to worry. Anyone can watch us." And then another older man who agrees that this kind of sensor could be used for "legitimate intelligence." Thus, using recorded soundbites in a highly selective way, we see how a Muslim audience is persuaded that these highly intrusive sensors can be used in situations of war or surveillance, either against the enemy or an innocent public who should have nothing to worry about from 'legitimate intelligence'!

Strange, is it not, that a Muslim audience could be persuaded of its use in the Iraq war? You would have expected a massive, negative reaction. But no. Instead, capitalising on guilt feelings among Muslims, they are sold the product as justifiable under wartime conditions. Once this breakthrough is achieved, the audience has been softened-up enough to accept its use by police or 'legitimate intelligence' (whatever that may be!) against a public that should not worry if it has nothing to hide!

This last is regularly used by the promoters of increased surveillance technology and totalitarianization. If you've nothing to hide, why worry? Using an individual's anxiety (ie that he might have something to hide from 'the Law') and the principle of the Big Lie we are bullied into accepting further encroachments on our right to privacy.

The Big Lie is based upon the idea that most everyone tells little lies from time to time. Little lies and dishonesties are, therefore, understandable and acceptable. It's what we all do. But Big Lies, on the other hand, are neither comprehensible or acceptable. So, when subject to a Big Lie, part of us --the part which governs our 'little me', personal values-- shuts down, unable to deal with the enormity of it. But another part keeps running and is forced to come to terms with the unacceptable, to accept that as the message comes to us from a source of authority then it must, has to be, true.

This process is sometimes described by the mind manupilaters in blatant fashion as 'thinking the unthinkable', 'pushing the envelope', or put in another way which remains unsaid, of being coerced into accepting the unacceptable.

This process is called Cognitive Dissonance, the process used here to extract the appropriate soundbites from an audience made to feel guilty about the 'war on terrorism.' Well, that's ok then, we are led to think. If a Muslim audience can accept this new technology (for they do have a problem with terrorism, don't they?) then it should be perfectly acceptable to us. Again, the projection of our guilt (but we do have things in our life we prefer to keep hidden!) onto Muslims (who we know are susceptible to becoming terrorists).

The key-phrase to sum up this event was obtained from a man in his (responsible) 'thirties who agrees that such intrusive technology would be fine when used by "legitimate intelligence," meaning government authorities. Again, the phrase begs so many questions as to what is and isn't legitimate but we aren't given time to dwell on that.

Instead, we are taken to the final, reinforcing summation: there are already 4 million CCTV cameras in Britain so is our private life safe? We are then told (sources not revealed) that 75% want more surveillance and this 'fact' is borne out by an 'expert' from the US National Security Agency, a body with a suitably authoritative name (how many people would know that the NSC is a US government spy agency?)

The promotion is ended with the same upbeat introductory theme.

Neat one, eh? Being of a mischievous, cynical nature I was left wondering if the BBC got a nice little hidden backhander from some Silicon Valley manufacturer for having given airtime to this promotional piece? With government cutbacks on BBC revenue it is increasingly having to privatize and commercialize its operations. So, while doing what the government tells it to do, in this case to promote the totalitarianization of Britain, why not make a few dollars on the side?

And, I couldn't help keep thinking of those Muslims in Forest Gate, my febrile imagination hearing their repeated cries of indignation against the way so many of the audience had left that meeting, feeling that they had been utterly conned into unwittingly cooperating with a foxy Big Brother BBC.

Divine Retribution: Blair is jailed!

More Show Trials in Blair's Corrupt Britannia

Blair's grey old, Ahrimanic Britain is becoming a place of regular show trials, the kind which befits the totalitarian state it has become, particularly in the last ten years of his dictatorial, neocon rule.

Today, on evidence that a decade ago would have been thrown out as circumstantial, the latest in Blair's show trials ended with five Muslims being convicted of a bomb plot conspiracy. These days the judges know better than to challenge politicians. The politicization of the judiciary has grown as quickly in Blair's Britain as it has in the USA. That is no accident. What Bush does to destroy civil freedoms in the US, Blair soon mimics. The two hit jobs are a joint operation. It was no accident that the UK (Blair really) so enthusiastically backed the rogue Bush in two illegal wars. So we can now talk about the USUK's Anglo-Saxon alliance.

Bush's entirely spurious 'war on terrorism' was, of course, his justification to con the people of the USA into his murderous enterprise in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the faking of 911, those of us who have followed these ghastly events know how both the CIA and MI6 were used to provide false evidence to justify the Iraq war. A recent book on the subject of how the intelligence services were used to fake evidence that Bush and Blair instructed them to come up with is Neil Mackay's THE WAR ON TRUTH.

The shoddy way this latest show trial has been conducted has all the signs of a fait accompli about it. Flimsy, sometimes laughable, evidence was produced for the unfortunate five's convictions. The convictions themselves were draconian and meant to be exemplary, from 35 years to life meaning life.

It is early days yet to find too much evidence on the Net challenging the authenticity of these trials. That will come. Meantime, I'm making two links here to recent articles on Postman Patel's blog which has been quick to denounce the fakery of what has been a show-trial carefully manufactured for the needs of the mainstream media (MSM).

Islamophobia never really existed in its present full-blown form until Bush and Blair created it as a Goebbellian propaganda tool. Just as Hitler scapegoated the Jews as Germany's enemies so the diabolic twins nominated Muslims to be the twenty-first century's Jews. Islamophobia is nothing more than a convenient vehicle by which racism and imperialism is promoted while the fear of the (coloured) Other is used to project the aggressor's own violence onto his victim.

So Islam must lose twice. On the one hand its people are bombed to pieces in a Made in USUK hell on earth. Then they are blamed for daring to resist or retaliate, labelled terrorists and banged-up for life. So what are they supposed to do? Commit mass suicide like the Essene Jews at Masada? They don't need to. Their lives, held so cheap compared with every USUK soldier's, are being taken in liberal quantities every day. Much of the blood-letting is then blamed on 'sectarian terrorists' but there's never an investigation into the use of these terrorists by the USUK to destabilize populations and justify the building of walls and heavy 'security' policing. Or the regular use of torture that has been deliberately promoted by the USUK.

Any sensible person would be alarmed by the way in which Bush and Blair are staging show trials. For they are a thing of totalitarian systems, the very thing that the capitalist west used to get so self-righteous about when it was Stalin who was holding them. Unlike Stalin and Hitler, Bush and Blair have a very sophisticated corporate media apparatus which can be relied upon to give the proles their daily dose of lies, propaganda and brainwashing.

And in the present mind-bending epidemic of terror plots and show trials how many non-Muslims in Britain and the USA are able to understand that the real enemy we, the people, now face are not Islamic terrorists but criminal leaders who, with a pretence of the love of freedom 'n' democracy, are gleefully pushing us all to hell in a handcart? What does it take to wake up these sleepwalkers, these sheeple?

Lawyer Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 now incarcerated at Her Majesty's pleasure:

"In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."

(Imran Khan's Statement has, so far, been studiously ignored by much of the 'freedom-loving' MSM)

The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained by William Bowles

Read it here