BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST

BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST HIGHLIGHT FROM JOHN PILGER ARTICLE  ... British foreign policy ... alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. —John Pilger Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jihad on Britain, FBI Leak, David Cameron, Theresa May, David Blair, UK-Saudi Arms Deal, Bank of Scotland Cluster Bombs, Yemen, South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Libya, Uganda, Mali, MI5, Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW? 31 May 2017 The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy. Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida". The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria. Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May? These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology. The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities. Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights. The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show". In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence". Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten". More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe. Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys". To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships". The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel". Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had helped create. On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent was under way, largely unreported. In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies." Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef. The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us. This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it." At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly. Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq... The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly". Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush's blood-soaked "shit show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May. The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not. Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know Very interesting article by investigative journalist, John Pilger, written in aftermath of Manchester Arena attack and ahead of the current London Bridge attack: 3RD JIHAD ATTACK - LONDON WESTMINSTER BRIDGE SLAUGHTER MANCHESTER ARENA SLAUGHTER LONDON BRIDGE SLAUGHTER At least seven people died and 48 people were injured in a two-pronged attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, with police shooting the three suspected assailants dead. The attack started when a van rammed into pedestrians on London Bridge and ended with multiple stabbings at restaurants nearby. Police say the suspects were shot dead within eight minutes of the first call. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/04/europe/london-terror-attack-witness-borough/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter It appears that the Western, including British, political establishment is in fact responsible for the attacks on Britons and all Europeans, by Jihadists - as the Jihad was manifested by British and NATO-allied oil Arab (terrorist funding) alliance machinations,  coupled with imperialist Western capitalist foreign policy, as well as capitalist-serving domestic ideology & accompanying domestic policy of decades standing, the consequences of which, the hostage domestic public subsequently reaps.

Invasion of Britain | White Genocide

INVASION OF BRITAIN West Midlands Police want 30 percent of its new recruits to come from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds to reflect the wider community, which incorporates the UK’s second biggest city, Birmingham. https://www.rt.com/uk/358834-burka-police-uniform-muslim/ COMMENT Wake up, sheep. This is what an invasion looks like. This is criminal.  It is criminal to give away a nation from under its people. It really is a genocidal program.

Assange in Danger: Ecuadorian Embassy Intruder Busted

WikiLeaks @WikiLeaks @WikiLeaks Highly improbable that this was a random 'intruder'. More like an MI6 or CIA visit. They're trying to kill Assange now. Security should have shot whoever that was creeping up on Ecuador sovereign territory. VIDEO IGNORANT PIG CHORUS SQUEALS FOR AUSSIE JOURNALIST ASSANGE ASSASSINATION [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] AUSTRALIA WHY aren't Australians furious that one of their own is illegally and undemocratically imprisoned by the British war criminals, on behalf of the American war criminals, on trumped up Swedish police 'rape' allegations, on which they base Sweden's FAKE 'PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS' & 6 YEARS OF UNLAWFUL ASSANGE IMPRISONMENT DOWN THE TRACK - without even INTERVIEWING their US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT & US STATE DEPT. WANTED POLITICALLY PERSECUTED AUSSIE JOURNALIST QUARRY, as the CORRUPT AMERICAN CAPITALIST EMPIRE STATE seeks to redefine international journalism and truth-telling as 'crime', so that they may continue to commit war crimes and other malfeasance under cover of secrecy, and with impunity. SWEDEN POLICE are top-down pressured into remaining silent about brutal rapes, gang rapes and mass rapes of Swedish women and girls by foreign infiltrators that have been violently assaulting native Swedish women for decades of GENOCIDAL Swedish government POLICY, and SILENCE of police and Swedish press, operating under a BLANKET of SWEDISH MEDIA COLLUSION, LIES & PROPAGANDA. THAT same corrupt Swedish state that implements a program of rape of Sweden as a Swedish nation state, and likewise implements a program rape of Swedish womanhood by foreigner, while paying lip service to Sweden's 'feminist foreign policy' that is UTTER PERVERSION & FAKE PR CONCOCTION THAT IS CONCEALING A SHOCKING & UGLY REALITY. CONSIDERING the Swedish state, police and media CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION to cover up RAPES OF SWEDISH WOMEN AND GIRLS by foreigners, just think what this corrupt state is capable of committing to accommodate the wishes and agenda of world trade and military hegemon, the US CAPITALIST EMPIRE that has issued a SECRET WARRANT for the arrest of AUSSIE JOURNALIST JULIAN ASSANGE (confirmed shortly after he was taken prisoner in Britain). ASSANGE IS WANTED by the criminal US CAPITALIST EMPIRE, and the corrupt Swedish state that facilitates rape of Swedes is blocking this Australian whistleblower publisher's LAWFULLY GRANTED POLITICAL ASYLUM AND ROBBING HIM OF LIBERTY on preposterous Swedish state  'sexual misconduct' allegations. THAT corrupt Swedish state is exploiting flimsy Swedish police allegations to unlawfully imprison Australian Journalist, Julian Assange without charge. SWEDEN POLICE allegations are so flimsy the corrupt Swedish state has strategically chosen (on advice of, and collusion with, Britain's Crown Prosecution Service) to DENY ASSANGE opportunity to DEFEND  himself, by thus far DENYING Assange an interview in UK where he is detained, although the corrupt rape-facilitating state that is Sweden has precedent of having conducted 44 such interviews on British soil in the past. It is under these circumstances that the corrupt state that is Sweden has continued to deprive Julian Assange of liberty, as it has maintained de facto imprisonment of Assange, who has been terrorised by the UNDEMOCRATIC, WAR-CRIMINAL BRITISH STATE committing an intimidating and costly 4-year Embassy siege at Embassy of Ecuador, London. CRIMINAL, RAPE-FACILITATING SWEDEN, has also denied Julian Assange needed medical treatment. A UNITED NATIONS panel recently ruled that Assange was arbitrarily and lawfully detained, but both Sweden and Britain have refused to accept the United Nations panel ruling and Britain has spent MILLIONS OF POUNDS on this illegal imprisonment that is CLEARLY POLITICAL PERSECUTION of Australian, Julian Assange. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, AUSSIES? DO SOMETHING! @WikiLeaks VIDEO - UN PANEL RULING BRITISH INTELLIGENCE GCHQ "DEFO A FIT UP" [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] FEMINIST SWEDEN [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB'] BRITISH INTELLIGENCE GCHQ "DEFO A FIT UP" SUPPORT ASSANGE

Leicester, England | Glasgow, Scotland

Leicester, England Once A Eurpean City Leicester Today Destroyed by Capitalist Class Source | here Glasgow, Scotland "First skirts ... now Pyjamas" SOURCE | here

Brief History - Illegal Iraq War 2003

ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR 2003 Jean B Lynch Book:  "France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations" Summary [all info contained is from above book online preview] Jean B Lynch Book:  France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations Info is from above source, but some of my own words in here (rather than direct extracts).   Lynch informs us that in the 1990s French govt began distancing from US policy in Iraq, when US & British capitalist serving governments began using military force on Iraq state (Saddam Hussein govt) to force compliance with 1991 Gulf War settlement. France and other governments sought to lift international sanctions on Iraq, due to the 'deterioration of living conditions' imposed on the Iraqi inhabitants.   Comment:  judging from the above interview of Madeleine Albright in 60 Minutes (an insert / not from book), the US-led economic sanctions were more than a 'deterioration' in conditions:  the sanctions were lethal. Jean B Lynch reports that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were strongly opposed to lifting of international sanctions. 2002 France eventual backed US goal to reinstate UN weapons inspections and UN Resolution 1441 mandated Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections. By early 2003, the Bush administration was making allegations of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, Lynch reports, giving the US (and their British capitalist allies) the 'justification' to use military force. Meanwhile, the French government and the Germans argued that Iraq was not in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441. French preferred an inspections regime, which they saw as sufficient to 'constrain' the Saddam Hussein government.  But, privately, some French officials were backing the US-Anglo capitalist pretext that Iraq was concealing WMD, Lynch indicates (minus the bit about US-Anglo capitalists). US-French discord re Iraq early 2003.  US admin called for regime change in Iraq, going beyond the UN Resolution 1441. Judging by the Lynch reference to democracy etc:  the US administration used the 'spreading democracy' pretext, which the Americans used in a series of hostile attacks on Middle Eastern states. France and other governments, Lynch indicates, objected to these added regime change objectives, on the basis that 'sustainable reforms' could not be imposed by the west on Iraq and in other states. US admin then had NATO provide Turkey with what it referred to as 'defensive systems' (but, I'm guessing these are really offensive equipment of war) and pulled US Balkan forces, replacing them with NATO member forces, freeing the US forces for conflict with Iraq. The following objected in NAC (North Atlantic Council), which is described by Lynch as NATO's supreme political body: France Germany Belgium on the basis that granting the request (to militarise Turkey?) would: de facto acknowledge Iraq had impeded UN weapons inspections (which was not proven) AND THAT IT WOULD BE PRETEXT FOR WAR according to Lynch. Outcome:  German and Belgian governments relent; France defers the aid to Turkey decision to another NATO body in which France is not a member, which results (late Feb 2003) in a decision to provide 'defensive assistance' (comment:  ie military capabilities) to Turkey, according to Lynch. The consequence was US criticism of France (and several other allies), who deemed (comment:  what is ostensibly) the anti-war France and Germany as the 'old Europe' and the pro-war Europe as 'new' Europe (Sec. of Defence Donald Rumsfeld), according to Lynch. Germany & France refuse to back US admin draft UN resolution authorising military force against Iraq.  France and Russia each hold a veto and threaten to use same if draft resolution submitted, Lynch reports. March 2003, Bush admin (comment:  backed by its British capitalist illegal Iraq war co-conspirators, under Labour PM Tony Blair), decide to go to war in Iraq without passing of the proposed UN resolution.  Opposed to this were:  France, Germany, Turkey (indirectly). The war hawks were:  Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain. April 2003 Iraq was [comment:  illegally] invaded by US and British forces. US, who illegally invaded and pillaged Iraq, sought almost complete forgiveness of Iraq foreign debt.  Two principal governments to whom Iraq was indebted to were:  France and Germany. Germany wrote off 80% of Iraq foreign debt, in excess of the 50% write-off that France had backed, due to Iraq's enormous potential for wealth from petroleum resources (and that other, poorer, nations would have benefited more from debt reduction), Lynch reports. As at the publication of the John B. Lynch book, the following was owed to capitalist Western states by Iraq: - USA, $2 billion - Germany, $2.4 billion - France, $3 billion French refused to take part in the US-led multinational occupation forces in Iraq as France did not approve of the basis on which the US launched war on Iraq from and did not wish to be associated with the occupation of Iraq; however, it France offered to train Iraqi police in France, according to Jean B. Lynch. http://www.abebooks.fr/France-Focus-Immigration-Policies-Foreign-Policy/1345667841/bd COMMENT Anyone who believes that the capitalists of (occupied) Germany and of France were seriously opposed to illegal invasion and war on Iraq is a moron. The bet is that this was just for show, so as not to alienate their large Muslim populations and their various Arab trading partners and weapons customers or their strong unions and leftist 'peacenik' voters (but the Gulf Arab Wahhabi pals would have been good for an Iraqi invasion, so it certainly wouldn't have upset them). French, German and US capitalists were owed billions by Iraq (in that order).  So French and German capitalists would have more interest in Iraq and more reason to want control of Iraq, or at the very least, interests in common with the US. Turkey would have also been protesting for show. Turkey is going fundamentalist/Wahhabi and it would have been opposed to the secular socialist Iraq government, is my guess. Plus, it's in the Gulf Oil Wahhabi camp that wants to bring down Syria and would be therefore opposed to Iran (and associated), so an attack on Iraq would have probably been fine with Turkey (must do some more reading ... I'm really slack). " ... Iraq was a resource grab targeting Iraq’s oil, as well as a money making exercise for mercenary companies, arms manufacturers, mega-corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and the banking cartels, Syria is different. Syria produces oil, yes, but nowhere near the scale that Iraq does. Syria’s closeness with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will obviously stand out as a reason why the US, Israel, the EU, and the GCC want Assad’s government gone. But factoring in the Ba’ath Party’s three objectives of secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unification, we see more ideological reasons, as well as the motivation for the militias operating under the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood umbrellas." Jason Langley The forgiveness of national debt is something I don't fully understand, but I expect it is for an interest in the resources in the country, which they will exploit in future. Why were the Italy, Spain and Poland capitalist representing governments so keen on an Iraq invasion?  The Italian and Spanish capitalist are imperialists from way back, but how does cucked Poland fit into this, I wonder?  Poland's been a poodle from way back in history, so maybe it's just more of the same poodling for capitalism? Why are the Belgians backing the US?  Whatever happened to 'neutral' little Belgium?   Belgium needs some street rioting ... LOL "Belgian Congo is often cited as one of the most brutal and exploitative colonial regimes in modern history" (Study.com).  Belgum maintained x3 colonies:  Belgian Congo (DR Congo), Ruanda-Urundi & some portion of China.  Of the Belgian empire, about 98% was just one colony:  the Congo.  Considered as personal property of King Leopold II.  Belgian colonisation supported by Western countries as Belgium was seen as a 'useful buffer' between colonial powers in Africa [wikipedia].  Congo yielded:  ivory, rubber.  Belgium appears to have had extensive attempts to colonise (or uninitiated plans to colonise) various locations across Africa, South America, Central America, Caribbbean, North America, Asia, Oceania and even in Europe. All this colonialism and capitalism primarily benefits the capitalist elites, while the European masses get ripped off ... and flooded with invaders from capitalist colonial outposts.  Not much of a deal for the European working class.

UK Plod Can Make Up 'Hate Crimes'

Surprise, Plebs! YET ANOTHER 'Hate Crime' in UK RT News EXTRACTS British police force classifies wolf whistles, unwanted sexual advances as hate crimes Published time: 13 Jul, 2016 12:39 Nottinghamshire police will record misogyny, including harassment of women, unwanted sexual advances and wolf whistling, as a “hate crime” in a bid to tackle sexist abuse. Domestic abuse is not included within the scope of misogyny hate crime, as it is dealt with under its own procedures. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland annually monitor five strands of hate crime: disability, gender identity, race, religion and sexual orientation. Forces can include their own definition of a hate crime. Link | RT News Hey, Plod? Think it might constitute a hate crime filling the country with invaders that are displacing and divesting native Britons?

Police State Britain - Raid & Prison for Twitter Troll

POLICE STATE BRITAIN 3 YEARS PRISON - TWITTER TROLL Twitter troll has been jailed ... for three years Canterbury Crown Court Section 4 of the 1997 Protection Of Harassment Act Cowan was arrested after police launched an investigation when Mrs Fergus complained about 'trolls' on Twitter blaming her for the death ... The judge added: 'Your offence involved sending the most vile and degrading messages via Twitter to Denise Fergus. ... police raided Cowan's home at the time in Margate, they found pictures of dead and mutilated babies and a photograph of Jamie Bulger's grave on her computer.  [COMMENT:  PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEAD & THE MUTILATED (WHATEVER THE AGE OF THE CORPSE PHOTOGRAPHED) ARE NOT ILLEGAL TO POSSESS, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE.  THEREFORE, THIS IS IRRELEVANT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. ] By Darren Boyle for MailOnline Published: 04:42 EST, 15 July 2016 | Updated: 06:17 EST, 15 July 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3690775/Twitter-troll-taunted-James-Bulger-s-mother-sadistic-abuse-including-pretending-murdered-toddler-blaming-death-jailed-three-years.html#comments http://archive.is/b0AnZ Much online outrage about this ... or Daily Mail would have us believe.  Of course, Daily Mail controls the comments that get published (or not), so the corporate media also controls the perception of 'public response' in relation to this (and other issues and events). While I think this is unsavoury behaviour and somewhat sick to have a collection of mutilated baby photos, police raiding Twitter trolls with a taste for trolling and a taste for the macabre, and imprisoning Twitter trolls for several years for the 'hurt feelings' of those that may elect to block undesirable users/messages in the online public domain, is, in my view, taking things to police state extremes. Does anyone think that the state authorities will stop at raiding and prosecuting merely those with bizarre online pursuits, or will these same state authorities use their powers to harass and shut down freedom of speech in general, when it comes to political positions and opinions the state disapproves of? SAMPLE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED COMMENT [CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE] Watch the corporate media give its blessing and encouragement to hefty imprisonment and public vilification of a native British internet troll. Meanwhile, actual crimes (ie crimes in the physical realm, not acts leading to hurt feelings or moral outrage) committed by those in protected groups (and groups prone to violently riot) are handled with kid gloves by the media, that often shuts down public comments — entirely. These 'morally outraged' clowns that come out of the woodwork to attack the likes of this woman are nasty trolls themselves, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for vilifying (likely) mentally disturbed persons, who are already being targeted by state law-enforcement punitive overkill. What amounts to global media scapegoating and pillory of what you might call a 'differently abled' (or perhaps even psychologically disturbed) young white woman by this lot of Daily Mail reader sheep, reminds me of the Monty Python films, where the baying crowds demand stoning.  LOL  ... and the white working class is deemed fair game for this abuse and exploitation by the corporate media and the police state. Blasphemy More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... CHECK OUT THE HEADLINE "Vile Twitter troll who called young Celtic supporter 'disabled piece of s***' banned from football"       16:01, 6 Jan 2016     Updated 16:05, 6 Jan 2016     By Charlotte Thomson ... he was forced to shut down his account a few hours after the offence because his tweets caused outrage across the country. Gibson was later charged and admitted acting in a threatening and abusive manner by sending sectarian messages online   ... ...  offence was aggravated by prejudice of religion and disability. ... the AFC fan escaped jail when he was sentenced at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and was ordered to carry out a community payback order. ... offender had been drinking while watching the Aberdeen v Celtic game before posting the "poorly judged" messages on the social networking sit ... messages would have been on for a very short time, perhaps a period of 20 minutes. ...  court heard that one of the tweets referred to Celtic skipper Scott Brown's sister Fiona, who lost a battle with skin cancer in 2008 aged just 21. ... stated that she was "in hell" along with Celtic legend Tommy Burns, who passed away just two weeks before her death due to the same disease. ... ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and banned from attending football matches - both professional and junior games - for a year. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-twitter-troll-who-called-7127793 http://archive.is/cKW5E However unsavoury the drunk rantings of some guy on Twitter, that the British state is aggressively (and selectively) policing remarks that are merely unpleasant, 'offensive' or whatever, ostensibly on behalf of the 'offended' and 'morally indignant' (and the 'vulnerable' that the state exploits as a shield for ever-widening incursions upon individual liberties), is worse (in my opinion) than the remarks that are being policed. Look at the amount of state power that is being projected onto the realm of the individual who made a public utterance that was not approved of (be it by the state, by the football fans, the 'morally sound' public, the media or whoever):  there's what sounds like online mobbing and harassment of the indignant 'moral' Twitter crusaders that shalt not be 'offended'; there's police intervention and charges; there's a court case; there's 200 hours of ordered state slavery (yes, modern-day slavery is what this is); and there is a year's restriction on this blasphemer's activities imposed by the state. On top of that there is the publicity surrounding the drama that was made of some drunk guy's inconsequential remarks and the media and public condemnation, that have put this individual in the spotlight on a national and on a worldwide basis, as a result of the media hyping that would have taken place. Yes, More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... The drunk football fan Twitter 'outrage' scenario is much like the drama that recently ensued over some other British football fan wearing a t-shirt of an 'offensive' slogan related to the Hillsborough football deaths. First the offensive t-shirt guy was thrown out of a pub.  Then his photo was taken and posted on Twitter.  Then he was mobbed by a Twitter 'campaign' of what amounts to mob abuse.  Then he was arrested for his 'offensive' behaviour, using broadly written, ridiculous laws that infringe upon individual liberty.   The Blasphemous T-Shirt Worcester man arrested on suspicion of public order offence A man from Worcester has been arrested by police today (Monday 30 May) after reports were received of a man wearing a t-shirt printed with offensive comments relating to the Hillsborough disaster. The man, aged 50, was arrested by officers this morning, under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986, on suspicion that with intent he displayed writing which was threatening, abusive, insulting and caused harassment, alarm or distress. Members of the public called police after the man was seen wearing the t-shirt at the Brewers Arms pub in the St Johns area of Worcester yesterday (Sunday 29 May) he was asked to leave by the landlord. Superintendent Kevin Purcell said: "I understand the alarm and distress the offensive language shown on this t-shirt will have caused to both the people in and around the pub and further afield. "I would like to thank the landlord of the pub for his support and all the members of the public who were in the pub at the time and came forward to report it. "Police acted very quickly to arrest the individual and he remains in police custody at this time." Issued: 11.50am Monday 30 May 2016 Helen Blake, Corporate Communications https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/19213/Worcester-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-public-order-offence Once again, this is beyond absurd. The guy is wearing a t-shirt with a message people don't LIKE. He was asked to leave the pub by the landlord, which is fair enough if it is going to be a security problem on premises. That should have been the end of it. The way the police carry on about 'understanding' about the 'alarm and distress' at 'offensive language' comes across as comedy when you consider what is going on here:  it's a guy in a t-shirt that might be considered 'rude' or something, but it's merely a t-shirt.  Grow up, Britain. Are these the same people that defended Satanic Verses in the face of religious outrage and the same people that pay lip service to 'Western values', when feeling the blow-back from Western capitalist interventions in the affairs of the Middle East? Is 'offensive language' 'British Sharia's' very own 'Satanic Verses' or is it the 'blasphemy' of biblical times, or the heretic burning and witch-hunting of the Middle Ages, or something? I cannot believe what I am looking at here.  Is British society so fragile and are the British so spineless that they cannot withstand to hear or see expressions they simply do not approve of or consider 'civil'? It is beyond comprehension that the sheeple are so daft that they get on-board with the 'offence' and 'offended' melodrama and histrionics that are inflamed by the media, and that the sheeple let themselves live in an oppressive and absurd POLICE STATE, as a result of their 'offended' bleating and demand for a nanny state that is policed on behalf of wolves. Observation:  it looks like the dead have become yet another Western victim group.   At this rate, the West is going to run out of 'victims'. So that's two lots of incursions on civil liberties in the 'enlightened' and ostensibly 'secular' West, based on things that do not exist:  (1) 'god' (yet religion is granted special protections and privileges) and (2) the dead.  Wonder where that places my recent criticism of Boris Johnson (re The Spectator's Liverpool offending article)?  LOL ... this is getting complicated.  I still thing he's horrible for trying to dismiss a city's grief for a captive that had recently been barbarically slaughtered in Iraq (especially, as I believe the basis for that attempt to dismiss is political). The Spectator opens with a statement that is true in general of Western media influenced and manipulated society, in which there is an institutionally and otherwise entrenched victimhood (and accompanying state incursions on liberties) promoting agenda and propaganda: " ... mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood..."  [2004] But then the article unfairly attempts to single out the Liverpudlians in an attempt to dismiss the mourning for the Liverpudlian captive murdered in Iraq, so as to push what I guess is the (1) 'kissing up' and (2) suppression establishment two-step political move.  Actually, that's the standard move.  But 2004 would have been a special time for the British political establishment and their media mouthpieces:  a time of making sure that illegal British military presence in Iraq continued undisrupted by public opinion (at British capitalist investment, by taxpayer slavery, of £9.24 billion).  So that would have been the agenda of the BRITISH CORPORATE PRESS, acting in the interests of an elite that is ripping off, enslaving, dispossessing and deliberately victimising the common man. Yet it is the politicians and media that have endorsed this culture of victimhood promotion and of political suppression, that's reached an absurd and institutionalised point, while members of their rank (such as The Spectator) have the audacity to seek to twist that around for immediate political ends, in an attempt to gain political advantage over the very people that are victims of the ideology of divestment and suppression that was promoted by them in the first place. Stepping back from the 2004 article, I think The Spectator definitely has a point in general terms about society (not related to the murder in Iraq) and that maybe it would be better to resist that mentality and the effects of that ideology in society, as it leads to nothing but political impotence, suppression and divestment of rights of European working classes. *Hoping this makes sense ... I've stayed up a ridiculous amount of time and I may not make any sense at all.  LOL British Police State Page