This site is a back-up for the main site at frombehindenemylines.org.uk
While the Americans have used their votes in a Presidential election to start a process of change that will make their country a dynamic power, Britons still can’t stop putting a cross on election ballot papers as directed by an Establishment that hates them and is solely concerned with its self-preservation – to the detriment of the lives of those voters; people who literally support it. No wonder the Establishment thought it could win the EU referendum by exploiting an act of violence (let’s treat it at face value) against an MP. It must have thought influencing the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election by some confidence trickery in Parliament was relative child’s play.
What is being referred to is the vote on Wednesday 7th December on Labour’s motion regarding the Government’s Brexit timetable, and the amendment by the Tories (aided by the one so-called UKIP MP in the Commons). This was perceived by very many as a victory for those who want Britain to leave the EU. It was far from it. It was a trick – that worked – to dampen the UKIP challenge in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election that was to take place the very next day after the vote. But that was only on one level. On another level, on closer inspection, the vote was about Parliament wriggling into a position to ignore the plain instruction that the result of the referendum clearly constitutes.
Before proceeding further, the reader needs to be absolutely clear. The Tory Party is pro-EU. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave in the referendum. The Tory Party has a Remainer leader – the British have a crowned Prime Minister who didn’t want them to leave the EU. That this coronation happened reflected the fact that the British Government didn’t want the UK to leave the EU. And nothing has changed. The British Government does not want the UK to leave the EU. The Tory Party does not want the UK to leave the EU. Everything you see from now on that looks like process to leave the EU will merely be positioning to remain in the EU in all but name. You can take that to the bank.
So, now let’s look at the by-election issue. People awaking on Thursday in that Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency would have been faced with headlines like this:
Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for ‘detailed’ plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50
MPs vote to trigger Brexit in March after promise of a plan
Theresa May secures Article 50 victory in the Commons
All of a sudden it looked very much as if the House of Commons had voted to approve the triggering of Article 50. If you were a Tory voter in Sleaford – and there is a lot of them – and you were a typical British politically-naïve BBC-consuming sheeple (a Conservatroid, in this case), and you had been dissatisfied with Theresa May’s progress, and you’d been thinking about voting UKIP, why would you now go and do that after such news?
On top of that, social media was full of jubilant Leavers. UKIP retweeted something from their MEP Jonathan Arnott – supposedly a champion chess player – congratulating Douglas Carswell (an expert on the culture of presentation in Parliament) for the part he played. Some Leavers picked up and ran with a ball that, incongruously, even the Remain-supporting Mirror was pushing:
“Which MPs voted against triggering Article 50 before April 2017?”
Who were the 89 MPs who voted against the government’s Brexit timetable?
This is referring to 89 MPs who voted against a Tory amendment concerned with the triggering of Article 50. This sort of thing is an old trick and a dead giveaway – it’s a clue (especially when the whole media is in lockstep synchronised promotion of the same talking point) that we’re dealing with an Establishment full-political-spectrum-wide psychological operation. The meme of scapegoating 89 MPs alone encourages people to focus on an irrelevance; it’s the whole House that is actually blame-worthy. It’s not the first time that the author has seen this tactic being used.
Back to the Sleaford by-election, and commentary has concentrated on Labour slipping from second place in the 2015 General Election to fourth. But this isn’t the real story. If we take the percentages attained by the four parties in 2015, and we apply them to the turnout of the by-election, we find that 1) the Tories received 915 votes less than they should – which represents a 5% loss. 2) UKIP received 738 votes less than they should – which represents a 14% loss. 3) Labour received 2327 votes less than they should – a 41% loss. The Lib Dems, however, gained 1732 votes more than they should have expected – a gain of 92%.
The by-election was a huge victory for the Lib Dems. We should attribute this to Remain voters identifying the Lib Dems as the vehicle for their battle. On the other side, UKIP failed to become the default party for Leave voters. In real terms, UKIP actually finished third, and this would be because of the hoax that the Commons pulled the night before the election. Because of that sham, and because of similar cons that the Establishment will undoubtedly stage going forward, the Tories will be seen as a safe pair of hands for Brexit in their strongholds. UKIP won’t get a look-in unless it calls the Tories out for the con-artists that they are. As for Labour, another pro-EU party, we won’t see it die as some people are expecting. It might lose out to the Lib Dems in the south, but it won’t lose to UKIP in the north if it is seen to be trying to achieve some kind of exit. This is how the Establishment plans to maintain the LibLabCon, and it will work as long as the British continue to be as spectacularly obtuse as they have always been (i.e. if they continue to be addicted to television – because that is the source of their astounding naivety and continuing actual stupidity).
So getting past the fake news, the truth is that no such event occurred in the House of Commons whereby the Government has been given the go ahead to trigger Article 50. Here’s a headline that better represents the reality:
MPs vote to demand Brexit plan and say article 50 should be triggered by end March
What happened was that MPs voted to demand a Brexit plan from Theresa May. That’s all. It doesn’t even mean there necessarily will be one (although we should expect it). There was no positive development with regards to Article 50 at all, in fact the detail suggests things are far from it. Basically, the LibLabCon conspired to produce more potential obstacles to Brexit (which was the Labour motion), and watered down the meaning of the referendum result (in the Tory amendment). Let’s look at it more closely.
This is the text of the Labour motion:
That this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016; recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union; confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked.
Look at this bit: “This House… recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union”
This is a reference to the denial of Crown Prerogative to trigger Article 50. The statement proposes that the House of Commons recognise that denial. The House duly voted for it. So, now the author would hazard a guess that the Supreme Court would be safe to overturn the High Court decision to deny Crown Prerogative, as the Executive branch, with this motion, has conceded to Parliamentary scrutiny of the process. Now, considering that Parliament is merely a rubber stamping vassal of the EU, and the EU is an essential tool of the British Government for tyranny, we can expect the statement to mean this: Parliament should make sure that there is a Brexit that fools the British people, but that isn’t really a departure from the EU. The non-exit is going to be generated by a forest of problems that were planted by this motion, and will grow up in due course. And the basis of that statement comes from this: “[The House]… calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.
What this is talking about is the genesis of what will become an Article 50 bill where the Commons will add conditions – say continued membership of the Single Market – and the Government will tell the public that it is a necessary evil, but compromise must be made with the “sovereign” Parliament to execute a departure from the EU. Labour MPs have already talked about using the plan this way:
If the government’s Brexit plan did not fulfil… [their] conditions, Labour would try to impose these terms on the government by amending the bill. On Sky News a moment ago, asked what would happen if the government did not cooperate,… [Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary] said the government would face “further challenge” from Labour. He refused to elaborate on what this might mean.
In addition, it appears that the production of this Brexit plan isn’t dependent on any Supreme Court decision. So we should assume that whatever happens there, the Government now has an option to whip out something from which an Article 50 Bill will emerge – even if it doesn’t need to. And if you think they can’t do this and the Referendum result was an instruction, without conditions, to leave the EU, then maybe you haven’t seen the definitions that were agreed on by the amendment that the Tories added to the motion.
Here is that amendment:
At end add ‘, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.’
In this statement it was proposed that the result of the EU referendum was a “wish” of the “United Kingdom” – and MPs duly voted for it. So, the result of the referendum, as far as “sovereign” Parliament is concerned, is not an instruction without conditions. It is a mere expression of a desire. (And just what is the “United Kingdom” exactly? Shouldn’t the statement refer to the people?). Moreover, the statement proposed that the House of Commons “should respect” the referendum result. This isn’t the same as “must enforce” the result. And think about it. Why should the Commons have to enforce the result when, after all, the result is merely a desire. And consider the word “respect”. Respect is a state that can exist without agreement. So, the House of Commons can respect the EU referendum result without agreeing with what it implies. Respect for a position is a state that can exist without having to adopt that position. The House of Commons can respect the EU referendum result without adopting it.
Finally, there is the phrase “[this House] further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”. This is what everyone was excited about, but what for? There is no power of compulsion. The House isn’t forcing the Government to invoke Article 50 by March 31st, or even the next day – April Fools’ day – which would have been an entirely more appropriate date to supply. In any case, invoking Article 50 won’t be the same as leaving the EU if the way is now open – which it entirely is – to water it down.
The bottom line is that Article 50 is a trap whereby the British Government can bring about a legal quagmire and a state of living death in terms of EU membership. Article 50 is a huge red herring. What people should be looking for is the repealing of the 1972 European Communities Act, and there is only one party that has now announced a policy for doing it: UKIP. Well done Sleaford and North Hykeham.
When the corporate-media reported that Thomas Mair had killed Labour MP Jo Cox and had made utterances whereby the event could be framed for propaganda as a Brexit Leaver murdering a Remainer, then FBEL investigated the veracity of the witness testimony upon which this narrative was founded. What was discovered pointed to an event that had definitely been exploited by the Establishment; indeed it appeared more likely than not that it had been tainted to create a handle for exploitation.
To what extent the murder of Jo Cox was not an organic event is anyone’s good guess – before we start to analyse it, that is. Some people say that it was a long-term psychological operation, even to the extent of gifting Cox the safe Batley and Spen Westminster seat for the purpose, aimed at making the British vote to stay in the EU. If Jo Cox was in on this, they say, then she’s probably still alive. True, there does seem to be a missing body in this case of most heinous crime – the jury only got to see computer generated graphical representations – and without a body there cannot be a murder. True, the crime scene looked as though it could be spectacularly pristine – but then we weren’t allowed to see all of it. So let’s work with what we can see, because this is the way that a web of lies is best demolished. There will be several articles on this subject because the British Government wants to introduce a mindset into the public consciousness whereby being an anti-globalist equates to being a neo-Nazi. Just as we needed to tackle a travesty in order to save Brexit, so do we need to tackle one going forward so that it can’t be used for the dangerous programme of stigmatisation that the British Government has planned for us.
Since the matter was last written about at this site, Thomas Mair has of course been found guilty of murdering Jo Cox in a trial that was described by Nick Kollerstrom as a monologue by the prosecution. Mair’s was a deliberately targeted attack for political purposes – hence he is a new kind of terrorist against the political consensus (which is what we, who disagree, will all be demonised as in due course). So, naturally from the court reporting available to us we get the impression that when Thomas Mair stationed himself on the corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane in Birstall on the morning of the 16/6/16, it was to install himself in a place from whence he could pounce on Jo Cox as she arrived for her surgery at Birstall Library in Market Street:
[Footage of Mair shows him walk] into the market square, where he takes station on the top corner of Market Street across from the library.
He lay in wait outside Birstall Library for the mother-of-two to arrive.
Louise Keskin [who worked at the neighbouring accountants] said the man in the attack was the same one she had noticed lingering outside the Vape Lounge [on the corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane] some time before the killing.
The CCTV shows us that Mair was in the vicinity, but he was a bit more random than the purposeful character he is portrayed to be.
At approximately 11.52am, Mair is shown on the corner in front of the Vape Lounge (Fig. 1), but this isn’t directly adjacent to the library. According to Google Maps it is about 100 feet away. Mair is wearing a grey suit jacket, and black trousers, and he is holding a brown jacket over his left arm – we’ll return to the matter of his clothing later in this article and then in a subsequent one. Mair also has some baggage with him, although not all of it is visible at all times in the images. There was a darkish holdall, and there was also a white carrier bag.
At some point between 11.52 and Noon, Mair had crossed over to the market on the other side of Chapel Road, because CCTV footage shows him crossing back at 12:01pm (Fig.2). Then we see Mair back on the corner of Market and Chapel in footage timestamped 12:09 (Fig.3). In a still shot found on the internet, Mair is once again shown in the market on the pavement of Chapel Lane (Fig.4). The time is 12:32pm.
So Mair’s behaviour during this period, then, was probably more accurately described by West Yorkshire Police on a web page they released giving an official public report on the case (that this report is fundamentally at odds with what was supposedly testified to in court is a matter for another article): “he was seen going to and fro across the market place and entering various bus shelters around the square.”
In fact, a witness in the trial (apparently) as much as said that he thought that Mair must have been waiting for a bus (source):
Witness Stephen Lees tells the jury he knows Thomas Mair and saw him waiting at a bus stop in Birstall shortly before #JoCox was attacked.
Mr Lees says Thomas Mair was wearing smart clothes, which he thought was unusual. “I did a double-take.”
As for the victim of this determined predator, the car carrying Jo Cox was said to have been seen on CCTV going up Market Street to the library at about 12:51pm (Fig. 5). In fact the CCTV footage shows the car about to park in a gap on the left hand side of the road (relative to the car) in front of the library. The timestamp on the footage shows 12:51.03.
The strange thing is that Mair is still seen in the market, on other CCTV footage, at 12:51.40 (Fig 7). We see him crossing Chapel Lane, to arrive on the library side of Market Street at 12:51.52 (Fig. 6), and he half disappears out of sight a second later. This is apparently the start of Mair’s attack run, and if you zoom in on the imagery, he certainly looks like he is still holding a bag in his right hand so, as we will see, he is all tooled up.
However, what the CCTV is telling us is that by the time Mair got to the top of Market Street, Jo Cox had already arrived outside the library some 48/49 (at the most) seconds ago.
The witness testimony suggests that Cox’s party didn’t hang about in the car after coming to a halt, but there is actually no telling if this is true when we find that testimony changing from one moment to the next, nor when it was very exact in the first place. Additionally, the library looks like it is a third of the way down the road, so given that Google Maps says it takes about a minute to walk along most of Market Street (Fig, 9),that means that we should allow anything up to another 20 seconds for Mair to intercept Cox on her way to the library. This would mean him arriving at the library, at the latest, at 12:52.12.
As far as the official story goes, this is all fine. The attack supposedly started at 12:52pm – which we can allow to mean in the 53rd minute after noon (source):
The attack started at 12.52am [sic], the court heard, and was captured in the distance by local council CCTV cameras.
However, reconsider the evidence. For Mair to have caught Cox outside the library, she would have had to hang about outside for anything up to 60 to 70 seconds – and do that instead of stepping indoors to set up her surgery that was beginning in a mere 8 minutes. Remember, Mair was supposed to be on Cox like a whippet out of a trap. And yet, when Cox was arriving at the library, Mair was still amongst the bus stops on the market (Fig.7). He didn’t look like a man who was waiting to pounce. But in any case, assume that Mair finally remembers what he’s there to do, and is able to see along Market Street from his position (a quick check of Google Map shows that he does (Fig.8)), and recognises Cox getting out of a car (it’s unlikely he knew what car to expect to see her arriving in). He then takes 10 seconds to cross Chapel Lane – we know because we see him do it (and it shows how perfectly prepared he was). Then there’s that additional 20 seconds to get to the library. The result: striking half a minute later after first seeing one’s prey; not exactly pouncing on it. The author suggests that, all being normal, it was more likely for Cox to have got into the library long before Mair ever reached her.
Now consider the CCTV footage of the aftermath. The image in Fig. 10 shows Mair at the bottom of Market Street. This image is supposedly of Mair escaping the scene of his crime.
If you look beyond him, you can see the gap in the parked cars filled up by the vehicle Cox arrived in – and you can see figures starting to mill about on the scene. Now, all things being organic, this picture would tell us that something did happen and Mair had been on the scene when it happened.
But consider this: Google Maps gives us a rough distance of 295 feet for that which is travelled by Mair between two known points of time (Fig. 9). Google also claims it takes 60 seconds to walk this distance, which translates to a speed of 3.3 mph – which is not an unreasonable figure for walking velocity.
The CCTV tells us that Mair, from his starting point on the corner of Market and Chapel, had about 125 seconds to travel about 300 feet down Market Street, and on the way attack Cox, and all that that entailed. If you like, assume that he would have travelled faster after the deed was done, but roughly it means that Mair had about 60, or 70 or perhaps even 80 seconds to attack Cox.
And what did attacking Cox actually entail? Let’s remind ourselves. Basically Cox was stabbed 15 times, and shot thrice. Some witnesses say that there was some hair grabbing by Mair. We do know that Mair had to switch between a firearm and a knife several times – how many exactly depends on how the witnesses are feeling on the day, apparently. One story has it that Mair started with the stabbing, then shot Cox once, then stabbed some more – while seeing off the unwanted attentions of Bernard Kenny, a man pushing 80 years who thought that he was up to intervening against a younger man armed with a gun and a dagger. There was also interaction with at least two other men who didn’t try to intervene, but thought that there was absolutely no risk in approaching and provoking an armed man with fierce admonishments framed in swear words. Finally, Mair finished with two more gun shots. Another story has it that Mair opened up with gun fire, did one lot of stabbing, and then finished off with more gun fire.
Another factor in the fluidity of, or any impediment to, Mair’s assault, and thus how swiftly it was executed, comes in the shape of how he seems to have operated one-handed. We can extrapolate this idea from the following (source):
A bloody handprint in the Labour politician’s blood was also found on a brown jacket prosecutors claim Thomas Mair, 53, dropped in a nearby street as he left the scene.
The jacket referred to is the one that Mair had had over his left arm. It seems that he kept it with him while he was attacking Cox because how else would she have been close enough to it to deposit her blood on it. Therefore it appears that Mair kept his jacket with him while he was attacking Cox.
As for his holdall, it seems that Mair had dropped it because we have this testimony from the trial (source):
Ms Holmes said: “I realised he was stabbing the lady. All over the top half of her body.”
He briefly left, only to return and carry on stabbing Mrs Cox, she told the court. She continued: “Just behind the car I could see something black, and he went to the bag. He came back with a gun in his hand, but not the knife. At that point I close my eyes and I heard a really loud popping noise. He did something with the top of the gun. And then he pointed it at the lady again.”
Asked what he did next, she said: “He then took a step sort of into the road, and he looked around, and he looked towards where I was stood. And he looked me in the eye, and he lifted the gun – not pointing it towards me, but just in a gesture.”
Mr Little said: “What did you do?”
She replied: “I ran behind the counter. All the time I was looking out of the window. I went to the door and locked it.”
Mr Little said: “At that point could you see the man? What was he doing?”
Ms Holmes answered: “He went back on to the pavement, where the black bag was. He put something in it, two things, and he picked the bag up.”
We’ll have a very close look at more witness testimony in later articles.
Another witness, a Mrs Major is reported as saying “she thought Mair had a shopping bag in his left hand with the gun in his right. He got a knife out of the bag.”
Ignoring as best we can what is looking like a contradiction to Ms Holmes, what this statement clearly suggests is that Mair kept his carrier bag with him in order to hold his redundant weapon – whichever it happened to be. Either way, whether Mair switched weapons by picking them out and putting them in his plastic carrier bag or his holdall, there’s a lot of old fashioned faffing about involved. And it suggests that Mair was attacking Cox one handedly, otherwise wouldn’t he just transfer his knife to his gun hand and vice versa when he wanted to use them, instead of putting them and getting them out of bags?
On top of that, the firearm appears to be bolt action with no magazine. That means that Mair has to load it one bullet at a time. That involves bringing back the bolt and releasing the spent cartridge, fetching a new round from wherever they are being stored – police supposedly found his arsenal in one of his pockets in a transparent plastic bag – loading it into the breech of the weapon, and pushing the bolt up again. All this, remember, is being done while Mair is supposedly, probably still holding a jacket and a carrier bag in his left arm.
So, to summarise, after arriving late, Mair appears to carry out a sort of hamstrung-by-jacket-and-bag one-handed attack – which was very casual and not at all frenzied, by all accounts – during which he had to see off have-a-go-pensioners and some mouth-no-trouser types. On top of that, as Ms Holmes reports, he also thought there was enough time for a bit of showboating before he collected up his tools and went casually on his merry way. But was there really enough time to commit the crime?
Let’s go back to some corporate-media reportage captured on the day of the incident. A witness, Hichem Ben-Abdallah, is quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Post giving some very significant information that we probably all missed at the time. Ben-Abdallah, of course, is a man already known to us because he was one of the people who created doubt about the claims that Mair had uttered the words “Britain first” during the attack (see here). Here’s what he said on June 16th (source):
After the second shot I turned and ran. He walked away very calmly, down the steps. Nobody stopped him – he had a gun. It’s like I’m dreaming.
Now Ben-Abdallah works at (and is possibly the proprietor if memory serves correctly) of the Azzurro restaurant next to the library. The steps he is referring to is a flight that separates his establishment from the library and appears to lead to the backs of the properties (Fig. 11). Ben-Abdallah tells us that Mair made his getaway not down Market Street – which is the official story – but by another route entirely towards the north.
For a moment, we’re going to take a vacation from the doings of the main protagonist (antagonist) of this story, and learn about another incident that happened in Birstall on the same day (source).
A local teenager has told the Mirror how she witnessed a man “looking very suspicious” from her bedroom window around 30 minutes after she heard about the shooting this afternoon.
The 16-year-old said: “My friend was supposed to come over but then she told me she couldn’t because there’s been a shooting. I could hear the helicopter circling overhead. About 30 minutes later I was looking out of my bedroom window and I saw a man looking very suspicious. He was lying down on the floor between two graves. He was wearing a black hoodie and he had binoculars. He was only about 50metres away and then he saw me and ran off. He fled when he realised I had seen him.”
There appears to be a cemetery in the St Peter’s Parish Church in Birstall, which is north and west of the town centre.
Returning to Mair, please look at the images in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 7 & 15. All show Thomas Mair holding a bag in his right hand – which will also be holding the carrier, which is sometimes not visible – and a jacket over his left arm (admittedly, very hard to see in the stills of the footage). Look at Figs. 1 and 13; these are images in which Mair seems to have put his holdall down because we can see both of his hands. Take a look at Fig. 15. This is Mair leaving home to walk to Birstall. What the imagery tells us is that when Mair picks his baggage up, he carries it in a certain way – jacket over the left arm, holdall and carrier in the right hand.
So now look at Mair coming down Market Street in Fig. 12. There is nothing in his right hand. The holdall may well be in his left one – in Fig. 14, which is a close up, it looks as though it is there – but tradition states that the holdall and the white carrier must go in the right hand, and the jacket goes over the left arm. It’s not that he’s still holding a weapon because corporate-media would be all over that like a rash. In any case, more than one witness said he put the weapons into his holdall. So does this image just show Mair doing something different because he’s panicking, or does it show someone else?
Now consider this report from Nick Kollerstrom, who had been at the court during the trial:
Sandra Major who had been in the car described how the attacker first raised his arm and shot JC in the head, causing her to fall backwards onto the ground, blood pouring out. He held a shopping bag in his left hand, gun in his right. He then got a black knife out of his bag and started stabbing her, as she rolled over into the road. J.C. cried out, ‘Get away you two’ as the fellow came back and continued the assault. He had a black or blue baseball cap, and was wearing a shirt and tie.
This report about the blue or black baseball cap is bombshell stuff (the shirt and tie stuff is incredible too, but these garments aren’t such high-visibility false-flag slayers like the caps are). Mair is seen before the attack in a white cap, and is seen escaping in a white cap. He wasn’t supposed to have killed Cox wearing a black cap. Who killed Cox while wearing a black cap?
Now the reader could well be asking, did Kollerstrom fall asleep in court and have a dream? This stuff about the black cap being worn at the time of the murder did not make it past the state censors (at least, not as far as the author is aware), and so no one who has to rely on the corporate-media knows anything about it. But this is not strictly true. Because Sam Watson, a local resident who was interviewed by the BBC on the day of the incident, categorically stated that the man who he thought committed the crime went northwards, not southwards down Market St, and went across Chapel Lane and through the Market and up towards Howden Clough. This man, said Watson, wore a black cap. His account can be found here: link.
Of course, Mair was arrested wearing a black cap, and Risedale Avenue, which is in the same vicinity if not a part of Howden Clough (one doesn’t know this sort of stuff unless one is local), was the scene of Mair’s arrest. So based on what was said by this witness on the day, Sam Watson, Mair must have gone along Nelson Street, and then on to the Leeds Road, which took him to his final stand. Contrast that with the official story which has Mair going south first, where he ditches some of his clothes, and emerges wearing a black cap. This latter story seemingly rests on the account of two men, Clarke Rothwell (who has been adjudged as not being a reliable source of data in a previous article) but mostly Darren Playford.
Darren Playford’s 999 call was played to the court – and not surprisingly so, because it explains everything, and it was sensational – sensationally wrong in some places. Playford is all hyperbole, and actually stretches his own plausibility as a credible witness. However, this appears to be the only way that the official story can account for Mair being arrested wearing a black cap. Notice how Mair disappears out of Playford’s sight. Could Playford be sure that thereafter he was following the same man?
In the emergency call, Mr Playford said: “He is shooting everybody. Outside the library in Birstall.”
Asked how many people were injured, he said: “I don’t know. He stabbed someone as well, he stabbed a lady. He is following me at the moment. I am just trying to get away from him. He is walking now towards…get the helicopter, he is walking towards Huddersfield Road [South of Market Street]. He has got a black bag in his hand, he has got a white cap on. You might need the firearms. He is an elderly bloke, he has got a white baseball cap on.”
He described the suspect walking by a pub.
Mr Playford continued: “He has disappeared behind the Vaults pub [on Brookroyd Lane – south of the Leeds Road]. If you hurry up, you will get him. There is chaos, he has stabbed people.”
The operator said: “Do you know how many people are injured?”
He replied: “I think there’s at least two. There’s an elderly man been shot. A lady has been stabbed. I actually followed this guy to try and see where he was going.”
The operator said: “Are you safe and out of danger Darren?”
He said: “I am, yes. He has disappeared out of sight. I don’t know where he is.”
He said: “If you hurry up you’ll get him. It’s chaos, he’s stabbed and shot people. He could have gone in the pub but it doesn’t look open to be honest. It is chaos.”
Mair then reappeared apparently wearing different clothes.
Mr Playford said: “I can see him again. He has got a black baseball cap. He has got a grey shirt on. He is walking up Brownhill Road now. A black baseball cap, he has changed it. If you get a police car at the top you will catch him. I am still at the end of Brownhill Road.”
At that point, Mr Playford said he had to return to his van as the keys were in the ignition, and the call eventually came to an end.
Finally, there is a very intriguing piece of material –it could be evidence along the same vein as this article has been discussing, or it could be nothing – that is best conveyed by getting the reader to do his or her own investigative work. You will need Google Map, and you will need to find what is common to both of the images in Figs. 15 and 16. Happy hunting.
Disclaimer: The man presiding over the trial who goes by the name of Wilkie told the jury that they should not conduct research on the internet in relation to the case of the so-called “Thomas Mair” (hereafter referred to as Thomas Mair). That “warning” absolves this article, although nothing written by any person now could prejudice the case as much as the entire British political elite did when using it to try to win the EU Referendum; but in case any jury members (assuming that they be real people) find this site, you should stop reading now.
This article is for the purpose of reviewing the first day of the trial of the man accused of the murder of Jo Cox, and comparing evidence with details that were published on the day by corporate-media. There’s not going to be too much effort to give links for information that is gathered from different sources – that can be done more carefully another time. No opinions will be consciously given except to note that the prosecution, which is led by the man who appears to have prosecuted Adebowale and Adebolajo, a certain Whittam, maintains a tone set by the corporate-media on the very first day of the event in June 2016. The inference is picked up by the corporate-media who declare it outright – the Telegraph calls Thomas Mair a “white supremacist” despite the author finding no reference to the term in any of the reporting. In short, Whittam may frame his presentation to the jury thus: “you may think that it helps you to understand his apparent motive in deciding to carry out this murder”, but the public is certainly being led by the way this has been telegraphed to them by the corporate-media (example above). Any who witness these events through corporate-media must gain the same impression of the purpose of the prosecution when “establishing motive” – by mentioning these impressions the author would merely be discussing what has already been well and truly seeded in the public consciousness by corporate-media.
The title serves to remind that the defendant in the case, when appearing at a preliminary hearing, declined to admit to his corporate identity. We are told that his defence counsel, whoever that may have been, identified Thomas Mair to the court. The police have released a photo of the suspect for the trial, and this appears to be the same man seen in pictures at the time of the incident, and purported to be Thomas Mair, wearing a white cap and a camouflage jacket. It should be noted that a picture doing the rounds on the internet of a man doing a Nazi salute cannot be Thomas Mair as claimed. This individual has tattoos on both arms, and the man who police arrested in connection with this case – as shown in footage taken at the time of the incident – has bare arms (see the featured image).
The first day of proceedings saw the prosecution introduce its case. There was a lot of detail about how Thomas Mair would use Birstall library computers to look up incriminating circumstanstial evidence such as:
- A Wikipedia page for the Occidental Observer, “a far right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and anti-Semitic perspective”.
- Jo Cox’s Wikipedia and Twitter pages
- William Hague, another prominent Yorkshire-based Remain campaigner
- Ian Gow, the last sitting MP to be murdered.
- .22 ammunition, including answers to the question “is a .22 round deadly enough to kill with one shot to a human’s head?”
- Far right politicians
- Members of the Klu Klux Klan
- Material about the Waffen SS
Notably it doesn’t appear that the prosecution has claimed Mair to be a member of any political group.
Witnesses were mentioned. These were named as Fazila Aswat, Bernard Carter-Kelly, Jack Foster, Rashid Hussain, Sandra Major, Shelly Morris, and Darren Playford. Notice that there are no names that were used by corporate-media to establish a certain narrative on the day of the incident. There could be other witnesses that aren’t reported in the corporate-media at this time. We wait to see if any of this witness will appear in court in person or have statements entered into the record. It should be understood that Whittam could have been paraphrasing testimony for the purpose of summarisation, and then corporate-media reporting could be giving it flavour, but from this we are to understand the following general narrative:
Mair is alleged to have attacked Cox as she arrived for her constituency surgery. The attack allegedly commenced with a blade, to be followed by a single shot with a weapon to the head. A passer-by, Bernard Carter-Kelly, tried to intervene at some point, but was allegedly stabbed. It appears to be alleged that Mair chased Carter-Kelly off from the immediate vicinity – to the doorway of a nearby sandwich shop where he collapsed – but then returned to shoot Cox twice more – once in the chest, and then in the head.
This is the witness attributed to the persons named above:
Aswat, Cox’s manager – with Cox at the time of the alleged assault: “saw Mair approach Cox from behind, stab and then shoot her, then stab both Cox and Carter Kenny… Then she saw Mair shoot Cox again. During the attack… could hear Mair saying: ‘Britain first, this is for Britain, Britain will always come first.’” Additionally: “repeatedly hit Mr Mair with her handbag… but was forced to retreat in fear of her own life being taken”.
Kelly, waiting in his car outside the library for his wife Doreen: “saw Jo Cox, who he recognised… heard a bang and saw Jo Cox roll into the road and then he saw a man ‘shoving it – a knife – at her’. He went to try and help. He was stabbed.”
Jack Foster, location unknown: “saw Thomas Mair standing with a gun… saw him raise the gun and shoot Jo Cox… shouted, ‘F****** leave her alone’… saw him reload or re-cock the gun and he shot Jo Cox again… remembers the shooter shouting, ‘Britain First’.”
Rashid Hussain, taxi driver dropping off fare: “challenged Mair, demanding that he leave her alone, but was warned: ‘You just go away, otherwise I’m going to stab you’… alleges Mair said words to the effect of ‘Britain first’.”
Sandra Major, Cox’s senior case worker: “described the firearm as being ‘brown wood with a metal tube at the end’… said that after Mrs Cox had been shot and stabbed, she ‘tried to get away from him’ but was shot again. She heard the killer shout: ‘Make Britain independent’.”
Shelly Morris, witnessed incident over the wall of a nearby care home. Purportedly first to call 999: “described hearing a loud bang and a loud piercing scream, and seeing Mair ‘swing the knife in a stabbing motion’… saw a man with a large steak knife with a jagged blade, which he wielded in a “stabbing motion”. The attacker stood over a figure and fired a gun twice.”
Playford, had been at the nearby shop Sandwich and Co: “saw the defendant leaving the scene and followed him towards the Vault pub… saw Mair disappear wearing a light jacket and baseball cap, but re-emerge without the jacket, carrying a holdall”.
The author notices that some of the witnesses appear to report two shots being fired, instead of three. This could be down to careless language that yet appears to be acceptable in such important cases. As far as the available information tells us, Foster doesn’t report the use of a knife. Of course, it is probably the case that there is more detail in a full statement made by this witness that is as yet unknown to us.
The author also notices that none of the witnesses used by corporate-media to establish a narrative on the day of the incident (as examined here) are named as supporting the prosecution – not thus far, at least. A tearful Darren Playford makes an appearance in a corporate-media report on Birstall on the day of the EU Referendum where the “vicar of Birstall, Paul Knight, asked the crowd to hold hands, chant ‘we stand together’ and pledge to stand up against hatred, violence and inequality wherever they encountered it.” In this particular article, Darren Playford is quoted as saying “I’m still shaking to be honest. It’s been a living nightmare, the same as for everybody who witnessed it”.
The author notices that there is an alteration in the narrative of Fazila Aswat. Granted, we heard her story first through her father, former Labour councillor Gulham Maniyar, in the hours and days after the incident:
Revealing what his daughter had told him about the tragedy, he said: “Jo was in my daughter’s car sitting in the back seat. The car stopped and Jo got out and my daughter went to park the car.
“By the time my daughter got out she saw Jo lying on the floor. She tried to help her but she couldn’t do anything. She’d been stabbed and shot. She didn’t know at the time how bad the injury was. “The gunman tried to chase someone away who tried to tackle them and then he came back again and shot Jo twice when Fazila was with her. The killer showed Fazila a knife but he didn’t attack her.
“He then disappeared. She doesn’t know where he went. Fazila just sat down with Jo. There was so much blood coming out and it was all on her clothes.”
Some of the information conveyed to us on the first day of the trial wasn’t new. The following is from an article, dated 18th June 2016, regarding the first hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court at which Mair was charged:
Mair told police he was a “political activist” as he was arrested a mile from the scene, the prosecution said. Officers said the accused said “it’s me” when he was confronted; he was then tackled to the ground, handcuffed and searched. During the arrest, Mair also confirmed his name.
Mair is alleged to have said “Britain first”, “this is for Britain”, “Britain always comes first” and “keep Britain independent” as he attacked the MP, prosecutors said.
Some key information from this hearing reappeared on Monday – and we’re specifically interested in the alleged admission to being a “political activist”. Interestingly, the four exclamations about Britain are identical to the content of the witness testimony of Cox’s political assistants.
Moving on, some attention should be given to a portion of an address by Whittam to the jury (note the first sentance):
Jo Cox was plainly murdered. Thomas Mair clearly had the views which provided him with a motive — utterly misplaced, of course — to kill her because she was an MP who did not share his views.
Prior to her killing he researched Jo Cox and how to kill.
The CCTV recordings are clear he was there waiting.
He used both weapons and you saw him return on the CCTV to make sure she was dead.
From this we might perhaps wonder if the CCTV did indeed catch the attack as other reports of the jury watching CCTV footage would have us believe. It could just be a bad choice of words. However, the Telegraph reports that the attack “was captured in the distance by local council CCTV cameras.”
Finally, the author thought it important to remind the reader of the coming to light, in the hours and days after the incident, of Thomas Mair’s mental illness. This issue is not going to factor in the court case. The Guardian reported on 19th September that prosecutors told a hearing that “there would be ‘no medical issue’ when Mair, 53, went on trial”. Assumedly, whoever is defending Mair must have agreed with this before hand.
And yet, Emma Arbuthnot, deputy chief magistrate of Westminster, as she remanded Thomas Mair into custody at his first hearing said: “Bearing in mind the name he has just given he ought to be seen by a psychiatrist.” She was referring to the name that Mair gave to court that is discussed at the top of this article.
Soon after the incident, we also began to hear about Mair’s parlous state of mental health (from here):
Mair called in at Birstall Wellbeing Centre on Wednesday night [the night before the incident] “nervous” and “shaking”, according to one of its workers, Rebecca Walker.
The 43-year-old said she spoke to him for about 15 minutes and revealed she wished she could have done more to prevent the tragedy.
She added: “He was clearly having some kind of crisis. I think there was a real problem. You could see he suffered from depression, he didn’t make any eye contact with you.
“He didn’t have many friends or anybody to talk to. He said he had walked by the centre every day for years and wanted to come in but never did.”
Rebecca said Mair arranged to return to the self-funded centre the next day, but never did.
She told how she was stunned when she heard about Jo’s death. She added: “I blamed myself. I thought why didn’t I spot more signs? If I just had five more minutes I may have been able to sit down with him and have a cup of tea. It may have made a difference.”
Then there was this (from here):
The picture that emerged of the man known as Tom or Tommy from those who knew him best was of a quiet and caring loner. His half brother, who is mixed race, claimed he had been volunteering at a school for children with disabilities for several years and had never expressed any racist views. Duane St Louis, 41, described his brother as a devoted son who shopped for their mother twice a week and who had visited her on Wednesday night to help tune her TV.
In 2011, he was photographed by the local paper volunteering in nearby Oakwell Hall country park. The previous year he was quoted in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, saying he had begun volunteering after attending Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental health problems.
“I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world,” he said. “Many people who suffer from mental illness are socially isolated and disconnected from society, feelings of worthlessness are also common, mainly caused by long-term unemployment.
“All these problems are alleviated by doing voluntary work. Getting out of the house and meeting new people is a good thing, but more important in my view is doing physically demanding and useful labour.
“When you have finished there is a feeling of achievement which is emotionally rewarding and psychologically fulfilling. For people for whom full-time, paid employment is not possible for a variety of reasons, voluntary work offers a socially positive and therapeutic alternative.”
Talking outside his house in Dewsbury on Thursday, St Louis said he couldn’t believe the news. “I was watching Sky News and I recognised him in handcuffs on the ground,” he said. “It felt like a dream. I just couldn’t believe he’d do something like that.
“I phoned my mum and she was watching too. She tried to phone his mobile but couldn’t get through and she knew something was up.”
He insisted his brother had never expressed any racist views and seemed fine to have a mixed-race sibling. Asked whether he had any strong political views, St Louis said: “Not that I know of.” He said he had no idea how Mair had got hold of a gun and did not have any hobbies that would require a firearms licence.
Finally, I would ask the reader to think about how Mair is alleged to have looked at all the right sort of material that would incriminate him in a politically motivated murder – in a public library. Be clear that Mair didn’t have the use of his own computer. He was one of those people who go to the library to use the public ones. You see this sort of person in the library of your own town; the same ones are there every day.
Also, notice that Mair did not attack Fazila Aswat, a Muslim woman whose father was a senior local Labour party figure.
Everyone knows about the three major pyramids at Giza in Egypt. Everyone knows that they were built around about two and half thousand years BC by three pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty. Undoubtedly, there seems to be a lot of certainty surrounding the genesis of the pyramids; and somewhat perversely, this assuredness raises doubt. The reader will undoubtedly have come across some researchers and writers who raise the following particular question: how were such monumental and straight–edged stone buildings manufactured with only rudimentary cutting tools available? Others notice how the Giza pyramids are superb compared to slightly earlier ones that are nowhere near as excellently executed, and this suggests another mystery: how did the Egyptian art of pyramid-building evolve so abruptly to perfection?
There can be no mystery if one comes at the subject forgetting everything one has ever learned about it. The answer to the riddle of the pyramids is that they must have been built when the iron tools to process the stone became available. Furthermore, the three major pyramids at Giza must have been built when the technical skill to plan and erect them had had sufficient time in human experience to develop into the ability to produce a masterpiece. In other words, the three greater Giza pyramids were built later than we have been told. This shouldn’t be as crazy a notion as it sounds, after all, if we were sufficiently well read we would all know that the father of history, Herodotus, told us that the pyramids were indeed built much later than is universally credited.
In his Histories, Herodotus lists eleven Egyptian kings as told to him by people who were priests of that country around about the mid-fifth century BC. It appears from the way the list is presented that Herodotus believes that every king after the first succeeded the one before him, so we should see each name in the list as a real human being rather than representative of a house or a dynasty, and the list as describing eleven consecutive reigns.
This is the list:
Sesostris, Pheros, Proteus, Rhampsinitus, Cheops, Chephren, Mycerinus, Asychis, Anysis, Sethos and Psammetichus.
The last individual in that list, Psammetichus, is universally identified as Pharaoh Psamtik I, the founder of the 26th Dynasty, who ruled 664-610BC. We can be sure of these dates because they are constituent to data that appears to be the only point of exact agreement between what is known as the Old Chronology (OC) for dating Egyptian history and the New Chronology (NC). This article can’t be written unless there is a mention of the distinction between the two. The NC is a 20 year old upstart developed chiefly by David Rohl, amongst a few others, that allows the history of pan-antiquity to fit together. The Old Chronology survives by being strict Victorian orthodoxy that none should dare to question, and that was conceived in self-evidently dubious ways. That the Old Chronology is still dominant appears to the author to be down to a refusal to concede, and a testimony to the tyrannical power of a self-interested establishment that has way far too much to lose by having its world view demolished.
Back to the king list, though, and to its top; Sesostris had already been linked to the famous Ramesses II before the NC, but it is the NC that enables a definite identification. Herodotus tells us that Sesostris launched a military expedition and penetrated as far as Scythia and Thrace (the Caucuses and the European side of the Black Sea), which is an unequalled piece of martial prowess. The Egyptian records tell of the extensive conquests of Ramesses II (or Riamashesha). And then there is a third character recorded in writings: the biblical Shishak who invaded Judah and removed treasures from Solomon’s Temple. All these are one and the same (please see Rohl’s “From Eden to Exile” for a full demonstration of how Ramesses and Shishak equate to the same individual). And so the NC brings the 19th Dynasty (962-829 BC) closer to the 26th, and it allows us to place Psammetichus in the scheme of things only a couple of handfuls of generations after Ramesses II, instead of half a millennium – as is the case in the OC. In terms of analysing Herodotus’ king list for the purposes of this article, this is the bare minimum that needs to be done, but faces are going to be put to the other names too.
If Sesostris is Ramesses II (943-877 BC), then it follows that Pheros must be Merneptah (888-875 BC) who was a co-regent for most of his life, and came to rule on his own very late and for a short time. Maybe this is reflected in the passive tone used by Herodotus: “After Sesostris’ death, his son Pheros inherited the kingdom”. Merneptah was apparently involved in fending off Libyan attacks during the co-regency, although Herodotus says that Pheros didn’t have any military adventures at all. In fact, Herodotus tells of how Pheros was blind for 10 years (before curing himself with a urine wash). At the end of Merneptah’s reign, and as a reflection of the old man’s weakness, there emerged a pretender to the throne, Amenmesse. (It could in fact be that Amenmesse is Pheros if you count the reigns of Merneptah and Ramesses as one).
Herodotus continues: “The priests told me that after Pheros the kingdom passed to a man from Memphis whose name in Greek is Proteus.” What this could reflect is the NC assertion that the 19th Dynasty continued alongside a new one – the 20th Dynasty (855-740 BC), ruling from a different power base, and which had little or no familial connection with Pheros. Proteus, then, would be Setnakhte, the father of Ramesses III or Rhampsinitus (the similarity in the name is obvious). Herodotus says that Proteus took the side of the Greeks in the matter of Helen of Troy (could this have anything to do with his coming to power?). As for Rhampsinitus, Herodotus tells that he was extremely wealthy, and Egypt did well up to the end of his reign (pretty much echoed in conventional Egyptology – he was “the last New Kingdom king to wield any substantial authority over Egypt”)
Herodotus says that the immediate descendents of Rhampsinitus were tyrants, the first being Ramesses IV – Amonhirkhopshef (Cheops) as he was known as a Crown Prince during the reign of his father. In official Egyptology Ramesses IV initiated a building programme on a substantial scale. This is reflected in Herodotus who tells of how Cheops set 100s of thousands of people to work on his projects (huge monument building projects are nearly always about oppressing a populace, in the opinion of the author). And in confirmation of the kind of king he was, and the financial disarray the country was in, Herodotus tells us Cheops forced his daughter into prostitution to raise money.
The next king was Ramesses V, or Sekheperenre Ramesses V (Chephren) to give him a fuller title; he was the son of Ramesses IV. Official Egyptology tells us that during this reign, the priests of Amun became more powerful (richer, and in possession of more taxed land) at the expense of the pharaoh. Again, this is confirmed by Herodotus who tells of how the people in the country became grievously miserable.
The next pharaoh was Ramesses VI, or Ramesses VI Nebmaatre-Meryamun (Mycerinus). He was the son of Ramesses III, so the brother of Ramesses IV. This character may well of raped his own daughter, according to Herodotus. We should note that Herodotus says that Chepren was Cheops’ brother, and that Mycerinus was Cheops’ son.
The author would like to link the next of Herodotus’ kings, Asychis, with the Pharaoh Piye, or Piankhi, the founder of the 25th Dynasty ruling out of Nubia, or Ethopia. This idea would be contentious with all of Egyptology – the NC has the 25th Dynasty start at 741BC, but Herodotus tells us that Asychis built a brick pyramid, and Piye actually did build a pyramid, and according to the orthodoxy, it was a major one and thus unusual for the epoch. But because Piye was apparently quite long-lived, and thus potentially knocking around across the good part of a century, it occurred to the author that he could actually have been Asychis founding his dynasty in Egypt before 823 BC to run simultaneously with other dynasties that the NC identifies to be extant at the time.
The next Pharaoh that Herodotus mentions is Anysis. The author thinks this must be Shoshenk I (823-803 BC), or Sesonkhosis, for the following reason. Shoshenk was the founder of the 22nd Dynasty which originally ruled out of Bubastis, which is in the Nile Delta. Herodotus talks about Anysis withdrawing into the marshlands after an invasion by an Ethiopian, Sabacos, and talks about Bubastis being raised up by excavation. Herodotus says that Sabocos left Egypt voluntarily, after which Anysis resumed being pharoah. It turns out that Sabacos is probably Shabaka, the historical brother of Piye. So, could Herodotus be telling us about a power struggle where Shoshenk becomes the dominant force in Egypt prompting a re-invasion by the Ethiopians to reinforce the 25th Dynasty? Shoshenk hadn’t been as helpless as Anysis in Herodotus’ story because he launched a military offensive into Israel (prompting orthodox Egyptologists to confuse him with Ramesses II).
Shabaka seems to have ruled with Shebitku, a son of Piye, in a co-regency. But the penultimate king in Herodotus’ list, Sethos, is prohbably Shebitku’s brother, Taharqa (690 – 664 BC), who is referred to as Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, in 2 Kings 19:9 – an enemy of the Assyrian king Sennacherib at the time of Hezekiah. He also appears in Josephus, who quotes Herodotus, but uses the name Trihaka, King of the Ethiopians. He clearly believes that Herodotus’ Sethos is a reference to the same person. In Herodotus, Sethos was a priest of Hephaestus who appealed to his god to aid against an invasion by Sennacherib. In Josephus, Trihaka prays to God.
Now to the crux of the matter. The historical scheme interpreted from Herodotus by the author is obviously not a serious proposal of the history of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate periods of Egypt. It’s a casual thought experiment and a suggestion of a possibility based on a little research, and there would have to be much, much more research to do to prove any of it. The purpose of dedicating this much white space to it has been to show that we could reasonably accept Herodotus’ king list as an inventory of kings succeeding immediately one after another from 943BC to 610BC. Eleven in 333 years gives an average reign for each of 30 years (and actually a period before Psamtek, where there was no one dominant king of Egypt, has been omitted).
All this now builds up to what should be a bombshell for anyone reading The Histories for the first time: Herodotus also tells us that the three major pyramids at Giza were built by Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus, who appear right in the middle of his king list. He clearly isn’t referring to any 4th Dynasty pharaohs who, according to modern archaeologists, are supposed to have built them because we can identify the historical context in which he places the three kings. And don’t forget that Herodotus isn’t remote to this history. He has proximity to it like modern English have to the Georgians.
And yet despite this we somehow know the pyramid builders as pharaohs Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. When Victorian archaeologists were looking for proof of the builders of the pyramids – for there are no carvings anywhere on the structures – they were looking for Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure (Herodotus actually explains why the pyramids might have ended up as anonymous: “the Egyptians loathe Chepren and Cheops so much that they really do not like to mention their names”).
The author assumes that the hypothesis of ownership must have been generated by other findings in the vicinity – of which, apparently, there were plenty – and then the names of Herodotus’ three kings were deemed close enough to justify the attribution. Amazingly, having used Herodotus in this way, his placing of the pyramids in (relative) modernity is just discarded, as is information about how the pyramids were built – which was a particularly foolish thing to throw away because it would have spared us endless TV documentaries about how the pyramids might have been built by aliens.
The attribution of the Great Pyramid to Khufu apparently relies on a cartouche in paint marked on masonry in an internal chamber (and assumedly the other two pharaohs just inherited theirs by association). Apparently, calling the cartouche a fake is frowned upon (as well it might be), but there definitely is controversy that shouldn’t just be swept under the carpet, as one website dedicated to the matter explains here. The author is in no position to make a comment, but notes it must be much easier for one of those unscrupulous early archaeologists, otherwise unskilled in stone masonry, to fake daubs in paint than to knock up an authentic-looking staela.
Of course, everyone thinks suggestion of a hoax to be unreasonable when they first encounter it: why would anyone what to create and sustain any horrible fraud and deceive so many people? The answer would be really quite simple. Firstly, people who want power will look to create situations where they have knowledge which is kept from the masses. It doesn’t matter what the lie is about. It’s about a kind of Magic that is generated from knowing reality, and making the masses believe in a fantasy. Someone with a grip on reality can occasionally project it into the mass delusion to win adoration or respect (think of ancient priests who had the power to block the sun during the day: in reality an eclipse). Secondly, if there is money in a fraud – which there usually is – there will always be people corrupt enough to perpetrate one and sustain it. Think of the industry that is propelled by the ongoing mystery of the Giza Pyramids. Thirdly, if people have committed a crime, they obviously cover it up.
But deciding that we have been fooled about the pyramids, which can’t be proven, is not the actual point of this article. It’s about the absolute crucial necessity of taking an alternative approach to gaining and possessing knowledge. The abuse of knowledge is something that happens all the time, for the reasons given above, and people must be aware of it because to be ignorant is to be prey – and we shouldn’t want to be that. Automatically do not trust whatever the authority tells you to be true. Go and look at the resources that they don’t let you know about, or have interpreted for you, or are older than the 20 years of age that university professors actively discourage students from looking at to ensure a Marxist indocrination. These sources are often there if you look, waiting to be found. Look to discover tools to aid your understanding, whether it be another language, or as in this case, an alternative system of chronology for Egyptology.
Being informed in this way makes us into critical thinkers who can’t then be duped by a Priesthood guarding secret knowledge. And then we can discover, for instance, that Global Warming is not actually a fact beyond debate, and we can discover that the WTC towers (all three of them), if they had merely been struck by two planes, just cannot collapse as if they had been demolished with placed explosives, and we can discover that, if it then appears quite intact in footage of his arrest, Michael Adebowale couldn’t have lost a thumb to a shot fired at him by an armed policeman.
An individual has a right to self defence, but in the modern political climate his enemies will try to convince him that he doesn’t by telling him that if he exercises his right, then he is being violent, or an extremist. They do this in reaction even to any expression he might make in reference to exercising his right, or his intention to exercise it. But essentially, what the freeman must remember is that he remains free only if he doesn’t allow his enemies to cow him. A freeman has a right to free speech, and definitely a right to warn his enemies what will happen in the exercise of his self-defence. Collectively, freemen can express themselves this way. This is why the High Court Judges who yesterday assaulted our constitution are rightly called Enemies of the People in some parts of the Fourth Estate. These journalists (who must be experiencing a deep instinct for liberty which is reflexively overpowering the crushing effect of years of whoring for the Establishment), are doing what they are meant to do, and speaking aggressively for a collective of freemen.
Of course, the Enemy of Freeman has worm-tongued operatives placed in influential and strategic positions other than those ensconced in the British legal system. Social media is full of them – useless idiots most – and large swathes of corporate media are ideological fellow travellers, or paid mercenaries – or Captains of Intelligence. Predictably, they are telling Freeman that he is not allowed to be upset by what happened in the High Court yesterday. But Freeman is allowed to be proportionally upset, and he is allowed to take proportional remedial action – and those who want to remain free are allowed to talk about taking that action. We have a right to self-defence.
Let’s be clear. What happened in the High Court yesterday was an attack against the well being of Freeman. We have a constitution that is meant to protect our individual freedom collectively. What the High Court Judges did yesterday was undermine that protection. Our Enemy’s operatives tell us that we were treated to the shoring up of Parliamentary sovereignty. What they omit is that it was done so at the expense of the constitution as a whole.
The following is an extract from the summary of the ruling made by the High Court. It comes from a section establishing the background to the ruling:
The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation.
To summarise this extract: the Crown’s prerogative powers normally apply to international affairs and treaties, and shouldn’t intrude on domestic legislation.
The summary continues:
In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect.
This says that EU law engendered by the 1972 Act (referring to the European Communities Act) is domestic law and that this domestic law will be affected by notice under Article 50. The summary goes on to say that because the use of the Crown’s prerogative to give notice under Article 50 will have this altering consequence, it therefore contravenes the boundaries of its expected jurisdiction. As such, the Crown’s prerogative cannot be used to trigger Article 50. In other words, the fact that the EU treaties cause domestic law means that the Government cannot repeal them with Crown’s prerogative powers.
Just think, the fact of legislation from a foreign power itself denies the Crown’s prerogative to prevent the issuing of that legislation.
The summary goes on:
The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the… EU Treaties, and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not.
Yes, common sense dictates that the Crown would retain a historical constitutional prerogative in spite of any EU legislation. Our law should be superior to EU legislation. However the judgement of the High Court insists that there is nothing in the EC Act 1972 that maintains the jurisdiction of prerogative power over the EU Treaties†. We should understand this to mean that legislation enabling foreign rule that also disabled a constitutional defence against it was intended, by cunning omission of crucial clauses, from the very start. Moreover, over intervening years, the Establishment has been squirreling more power for foreign rule through precedent-setting cases* and writings that seem to have helped form this judgement, so that the EC Act 1972, while on the statute book… “give(s) directly effective EU law superiority even over domestic primary legislation” and that it is “constitutional statue… having such importance in our legal system that it is not subject to the usual wide principle of implied repeal by subsequent legislation.”
Now it is the author’s suspicion that actually the prerogative of the Crown can be used more extensively than reported, and the fact that it hasn’t in the past has formed the convention that it isn’t used (the bottom line is that the Crown’s powers are restricted in relation to the British “Republic”. If the Parliament, which is merely an expression of the Republic, becomes illegitimate, then arguably the Crown should be able to intefere in Parliament). However, setting all that aside, what we clearly have here is a judicial ruling that actually sets EU legislation supreme over the normal working of our constitution. This ruling actually denies Crown’s prerogative in favour of EU legislation.
Once again, there is a lot being said by aforementioned useful idiots and operatives about how this judgement upholds parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, but to the detriment of our constitution. Parliament is now protected to rubber stamp EU legislation – by that very legislation; and this is a state of affairs that will last while Parliament is full of EU Yes Men. So, the judgement has handed full power to a vassal of Brussels.
I judge that to be an attack on our constitution, and an act of treason. As such, it should be countered by patriots (individuals with a concern in the protection of rights, and the community in which individuals live together where this is encoded for common good – a country) exercising their right to self-defence.
The way ahead is to repeal the 1972 EC Act. As the High Court judgement admits, this can be repealed by Parliament. The “domestic” EU law can also be repealed by Parliament. But a Parliament willing to do this must be in place. And so, patriots must force a General Election as soon as possible, and vote for candidates that promise to repeal the 1972 EC Act. UKIP should run with this promise central to their manifesto, and make it clear that there is no alternative and explain why. There is a case to make that UKIP must form a strategy so as to help get elected Labour and Tory MPs who would pledge to repealing the 1972 EC Act, but the author does not recommend it. The LibLabCon is simply not to be trusted. For instance, notice how Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg describes how High Court and Supreme Court activism could be circumvented by legislation in the current Parliament:
This could be done through a small Bill that merely gives a (Prime?) Minister the right to give notice under Article 50 and need not run to more than a couple of clauses. Such a Bill could be passed within hours – but it is possible it could be obstructed.
While researching this article, it occurred that Article 50 is a complete Red Herring that was meant as a trap so that the question of Brexit could be placed in the hands of the EU vassal at Westminster and in a way that Tory Government could distance itself from the subsequent public negativity. Remember, Parliament is captured by a foreign power and British collaborators so that it is immune to a constitutional tool that could break this control. It is not guaranteed, and actually unlikely, that Parliament will legislate to open the way to Brexit before a General Election. As for that contest, a meme is emerging whereby the crisis is seen as being beneficial for the Tories, and it was expressed again by Rees-Mogg:
The Conservative Party has nothing to fear from a general election. I think we would win it quite comfortably and the electorate would very likely carry out a purge of pro-Europeans.
If we look at some facts on the ground. Parliament is overwhelmingly pro-EU. This means that most Tories must be pro-EU, and indeed they are. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave. How could a purge of “pro-Europeans” (notice the choice of language) happen without mass de-selection first, which isn’t going to happen. The leadership of the Tory Party is pro-EU (see the ConservativeHome article). What Rees-Mogg reveals is probably the hoped-for outcome of a scheme to exploit the crisis and have the Tories sit in that insulated-from-constitution Parliament pretending to be anti-EU and leading the electorate by the nose until it’s too late.
Finally, if Parliament fails, then all is not lost. In his response to the ruling, UKIP MEP and constitutionalist Gerard Batten questions the supremacy of Parliament, and he is right to do so. The fundamental principle is government by consent. If Parliament is not consented to by those who are governed, it is not government. Parliament does not have a divine right to rule, and in the name of self-defence, patriots have the right to replace any form of government with another that does honour the principle of rule by consent.
† In fact this reflects plaintiff’s argument that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of prerogative powers by enacting the 1972 Act. Lawyers for Britain demonstrate why this is not the case.
*Gerard Batten points out that precedent supports the use of the prerogative; it reminds that law is open to interpretation, and rulings depend on who is doing the interpretation (in this case, one openly pro-EU judge):
A pattern emerges of very good – nay, exceptionally good fortune for the British Government. When it wants a war on Saddam Hussein citing a War on Terror – and a dodgy dossier – a weapons expert happens to die; not to mention an obstructive MP who had caused embarrassment by quitting as the Leader of the House of Commons at the disgrace of the whole thing. When it wants to intervene in Syria against al-Assad on the pretence of fighting ISIS (which it facilitates), the next thing we are told is that a soldier has been killed by jihadists. And so it seems that when the Government wants to win a referendum on EU membership which, given the historical unpopularity of the EU with the British, for all the world it couldn’t win – then, guess what? Yes – another MP happens to die right on cue: conveniently killed by a “racist” – a fortuitous permutation of circumstances which gave the Remain side an opportunity to campaign passively while the Leave side actually payed its respects, and enabled it to appeal to the emotions of the voter, rather than their reasoning. No need, any more, to argue for that corrupt organisation based on its merits – of which it has none. As ProjectFear morphs fully into ProjectExploitDeadMP, for its finale, one day ahead of the vote, the Government – can it believe it’s luck? – gets to campaign by “virtue signalling” at a memorial, organised by a Westminster PR machine, held in Trafalgar Square. But that’s not all – memorials are apparently going to be held all over the world on the 22nd June. How very convenient for the pro-EU British Government.
And the Government finds itself in this position of extremely good fortune all because of a narrative overlaid on top of a murder; a narrative that appears to the author to have been, in the first instance, created by the Government’s propaganda arm – the Corporate Media. Please refer to this article  which deals with the establishment of the initial big headline of “Britain First” which undoubtedly was intended to have the public conceive Mair as being an extremist. After that there was a dripping-down of information that was presented to bolster the first conviction. Apparently, “special Police units” - whoever they may be – were happy to tell the Guardian that they had found Nazi regalia at the home of Mair. Does briefing of the press about incriminating evidence sound like proper due process? Then we had the Southern Poverty Law Centre stick its oar in. As little as the author is interested in this thoroughly discredited organisation, it reminds him of the Witchsmeller Pursuivant from Blackadder, who would have the peasants believe that Black Satin the horse can talk to the Great Grumbledook. And seeing that we have stumbled into this territory, there is an episode of Father Ted that the author keeps being reminded of.
Unbeknownst to him, Ted is bequeathed a room full of “Nazi regalia” – we can call it that because in its original setting it was being used as a shrine. When it becomes Ted’s, it’s still Nazi regalia because there’s so much of it – you couldn’t get away with calling it “World War II” memorabilia – which is what such historic items can be called when they are in the hands of collectors who do not possess them with the intent to glorify what they represent (by the way, the author does not collect WWII memorabilia). Anyway, mark this, and mark the fact that police, who must have known what would become of the information, told the Guardian – of Graeme Howard fame (see article linked-to above) – that Mair possessed Nazi regalia.
Getting on with it, and the famous moment in the Father Ted episode referred to must be one of the most hilarious in all of the history of British comedy. Ted is standing at the window signalling to a Chinese father and son (actually from Lancashire by the sounds of it) newly arrived on the island. Unfortunately, there is a piece of black tape on the glass that is so ludicrously contrived in its placement to give the appearance of a Hitler moustache under Ted’s nose. Ted’s energetic and comically over-the-top gesticulations are completely unfortunate in this context. But crucially, it is the black tape that makes Ted look like a man acting in a different way than is his intention. Here is the point: the Corporate Media – and this could be said of it even before we heard of Thomas Mair – is always the Black Tape.
And the Governemnt always needs the Black Tape, and never more so than when in its current predicament. Given the loathing of the EU historically held by a majority of Britons, the author did not believe that any politician campaigning for continued EU membership could ever win any referendum for their cause – even one held in the context we find ourselves now. However, after investigating the huge stink surrounding the election at Thanet South (here and here), and then other elections such as Thurrock, I discovered how a victory could be achieved nevertheless. I came to the conclusion that the Government was capable of rigging an entire election. In the case of the 2015 General Election, I suspected it was done by targeting crucial seats in a criminal fashion – expense anomalies nothing in comparison to what must have gone on. Of course, it helped to be aware of the fear in the air ahead of the vote when the Establishment was preparing the way for the possibility of a Grand Coalition between Labour and the Tories. As it turns out, this was obviously a too dangerous outcome for the Establishment to tolerate.
All things being such, and considering the determination of our elites to build a global system of governance – which won’t be opposed under any circumstances – I have been convinced that the Establishment would try and rig the referendum. I have not been alone – please see this article which examies how one third of people voting to Leave think that there will be vote rigging.
Now, understand that the Establishment can’t rig the vote in isolation. It needs the people to believe that the outcome it engineers is a realistic one. In 2015 before the General Election there was a huge campaign of fear-mongering to plant the idea that voting for UKIP instead of the Conservatives would let Labour form a coalition with a surging SNP. This idea flew in the face of the messages that Establishment thinkers were sending each other – they feared the necessity of the aforementioned Grand Coalition.
This year, we are seeing something different. This year we are seeing a last-moment trap being sprung on us that, to be fair, many of us have actually predicted – the details being the only aspect that couldn’t be known. I am firmly of the view that the opinion polls are being manipulated prior to the vote – either by controlling the respondents or controlling the way the poll is targeted – to try and suggest a reaction to Jo Cox’s murder. Last week, when Leave looked headed for a barnstorming win, the polls may have been more organic, but it really doesn’t matter. This week – or more particularly as released on the 21st June (taken from here) – they look like this:
Remain leading by 1%
Leave leading by 2%
Remain leading by 1%
Remain leading by 7%
Remain leading by 6%
In other words, the Establishment, with its exploitation of Jo Cox’s death, is blowing a dog whistle that it, after all is done and a shock “Remain” vote is gathered in, will say we heard – even if we didn’t know it – and involuntarily responded to after all. Our response right at the end of the referendum campaign was emotional – that will be the story.
In reality, given the long-held feelings of grievance owned by a traditional majority of Britons, I suspect that people have already turned a deaf ear to the call. I suspect that the virtue signalling is not going to blare out what people are hearing on Radio EU-future, and I suspect that the drawn out groaning sound of a few hard facts in people’s everyday existence is not going to be drowned out by the jingle bells of a pretend reality.
The Establishment has never had anything in its armoury other than smoke and mirrors. The people of Britain, their hated and avowed enemy, have a real desire for the restoration of their national identity – something that is illustrated in the very interesting map above (source).
The way we beat the Establishment and their fix is very easy. The bigger the number of votes for Leave, and the larger the gulf between it and Remain, the more difficult it will be to meddle with ballot boxes and nudge the latter into the lead. The way we beat the fix is to go out in our masses and vote to leave.
 An interesting development. A man with a pair of binoculars was seen in nearby grave yard.
The murder of an MP on 16/6/2016 ahead of a referendum that was going to bring about that long-hoped-for devastating game-changer in British politics was just all too convenient – all too convenient for people who have far too much at stake to allow Brexit to happen. Before the murder, as is universally acknowledged, the polls were reflecting what British people knew in their guts – they were going to vote to leave the EU. Post-murder – and there is an atmosphere of unease and trepidation. Good people are, in their masses and by an Establishment-contrived association with the murderer, Thomas Mair, having their noses rubbed roughly in the mess that they are being told they have brought into the clean house. Since the murder politicians and activists for the Remain side have undeniably been making hay – abetted by their erstwhile partners in conniving and perception-shaping, the British Corporate Media. It was truly ghastly for the author to see the new spring in the steps of the StrongerIn activists as he walked through his town today. Reading the message boards on the internet, the author can also see that there is an anxiety amongst patriotic Britons that the murder of Jo Cox – or rather its exploitation by the said gang of villains – will have a negative effect at polling booths and dash a widely and long-held ambition of freedom – now, according to the Pro-Globalist Remain side, a dirty word. It is truly agonising to see known gangsters – pretty much the same people who brought you WMD in 45 minutes, or guns to Al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria – hold an entire country to emotional blackmail. This is why it is crucial that there should be a review and a repudiation of the data presented to us by the Corporate Media about the Jo Cox murder, for it is this information by which the entire Vote Leave campaign is currently being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion – with the UKIP element being persecuted quite particularly. The author has made a preliminary foray, and has found evidence enough to believe that the Media has undoubtedly become involved in creating a false narrative to explain the actions of Thomas Mair. There seems to be one definite case of invented information being introduced by a Media outlet. Furthermore, until the author sees evidence to the contrary (which does not include a protest of “the Media wouldn’t do that”), there seems to be another case where a Media outlet has not only introduced the same information, but also set up a self-referential loop of citation to cover its tracks. Thirdly, it is entirely possible, according to the author’s study of the evidence, that Media has also sought out witness testimony to reinforce the false narrative rather than reflect the reality on the ground.
At the core of this chicanery is the claim that “Britain First” had been shouted by Thomas Mair as he attacked Jo Cox. Please note, the narrative that this information facilitated enabled the media to hang a political motive on the deed immediately, so there was cause for what we must accept these days to be a Media that is very far indeed from being independent of the State. The storyline provided meat for the shock headlines that are – as the text-book for doing this sort of thing states – designed to place an unwavering certainty of the initially sown seed. However, it looks almost certainly like there was no shout of “Britain First” – and this discovery was thanks to the interest, efforts and the large-enough web-presence of Breitbart – which, reaching in from Free USA, is big enough to smash the usual British Corporate Media grip on the consensus – something the text-book usually relies on.
To begin with, then, Breitbart followed up comments made on TV (here) by witness Hichem Ben Abdallah – the author isn’t clear as to whether this interview was with Channel 5s Andy Bell – who actually rang the alarm bells with a tweet – or whether it was with Sky News. Either way, in an extensive interview with the alternative media organisation, Mr Abdallah maintained that he didn’t hear anyone shouting “Britain First”.
On the same day Breitbart was conducting investigations in Birstall – the 17th June – a message was discovered pasted in the window of the launderette – a business supposedly close at hand to the place of the murder – and it read:
“Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time.”
The LBC reportage continued…
LBC’s reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.
And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety after reports named him for making to original claim.
As the above quotation spells out, Mr Tahir had previously been named as witnessing the “Britain First” shout. In fact there were a number of people who the Corporate Media claimed had witnessed the phenomenon. As we shall see, all these attributions became undermined. We’ll start with Aamir Tahir – who did it for himself.
The Mail, at 6pm on the day of the murder when the author captured the page, reported the following: (link)
Aamir Tahir, of The Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting ‘Britain first’.
He said: ‘The lady I work with heard two loud bangs. I wish I was there because I would have tried to stop him.
‘Apparently the guy who did it shouted ‘Britain first’ and if I had been there I would have tackled him.’
Furthermore, the Independent, in a piece published on the 17th, had this:
Aamir Tahir, of the Dry Clean Centre, said the gunman was heard shouting “Britain first”.
As the reader can see, Tahir’s hearsay – if indeed he even ever revealed it to journalists – was turned into a firsthand witness account. If Tahir hadn’t had expressly denied the reports, and if objective journalists had not been on hand to convey his real story, this non-witness account would have entered into the record as fact in the ongoing public-kangaroo-court trial of the Vote Leave campaign. The disgracefulness of the journalism is self-evident.
The next candidate as source of Mair’s war cry was provided by the Guardian (link), which when the author recorded the page at 6pm on 16th June, reported the following:
Graeme Howard, 38, who lives in nearby Bond Street, told the Guardian he heard the man shout “Britain first” before the shooting and during the arrest.
“I heard the shot and I ran outside and saw some ladies from the cafe running out with towels,” he said. “There was loads of screaming and shouting and the police officers showed up.
“He was shouting ‘Britain first’ when he was doing it and being arrested. He was pinned down by two police officers and she was taken away in an ambulance.”
It was very unfortunate for the Guardian that, when in the area, Breitbart went looking for Mr Howard. This is what they reported:
There is no record of the last witness named in the Guardian – Graeme Howard – living in the area, though they claim he lived on Bond Street, just minutes away from the site of the murder. Breitbart London visited Bond Street – a tiny road – last night, and could not find Mr. Howard.
As damning as that may be, another reason to be incredulous at the Guardian’s report at face value is how Howard gives the impression that the attack and arrest happened at the same place. Jo Cox was pronounced dead at 13:48 – apparently still in the care of paramedics according to police statements, so we can confirm that part of “Howard’s” story. However, Mair was arrested in Risedale Avenue at 13.25pm – about a mile away. Additionally, there is footage of the arrest on the internet, and if Mair had been shouting “Britain First”, he’d become most uncooperative by the time the camera started rolling to capture it.
The whereabouts of Graeme Howard are a great mystery on the patriotic side of the internet – obviously there does not seem to be too much concern on the other as Mr Howard still fails to materialise. Deserved condemnation of the Guardian can be found here: BiasedBBC – The Guardian in the Gutter.
The author also captured the Telegraph live feed (here) at 6pm on 16th June, and noticed when perusing it later that at 15:32 the following item flashed onto the wire:
Clarke Rothwell said that, as the man stabbed Mrs Cox, he shouted: “Britain First, Britain First, Britain First.”
He said: “Three times she was shot, the initial time which then she dropped to the floor and two more times.
“The third time he got close proximity he shot her round the head area.”
He added: “In the meantime he was stabbing her as well, he was stabbing her with his knife.”
Mr Rothwell said there was blood everywhere at the scene.
Asked if he thought Ms Cox had intervened in a dispute he said he understood the altercation was “always between the guy carrying the gun and the lady that got shot”.
Mr Rothwell added: “He was stabbing her with a footlong knife multiple times while shouting Britain First, Britain First, Britain First.”
Much later in the day came further developments on this front in the shape of a TV interview with Clarke Rothwell conducted by BBC (here). Apparently this was done during daylight hours, but according to the scrolling banner it was aired at about 10pm. In this clip, the interviewer claimed that this constituted Rothwell’s only appearance on TV – but that wasn’t actually true, as we shall see.
At this stage of the investigation, it becomes clear why it was obviously felt by some people in the Media that Rothwell would have to revisit his story, overtly – in front of camera: the “Britain First” myth was starting to look heavily mauled and was barely hanging together. Even Rothwell had problems with his story – having appeared to have changed it by the time that the BBC had arranged his to-camera piece. This is what he said:
“The words I heard him say was Britain First, or put Britain first – I can’t say exactly.”
Obviously, this is very different to “Britain First! Britain First! Britain First!” which the Telegraph, at 15.32, had cited Rothwell as reporting. “Britain First! Britain First! Britain First!” suggests a pounding assault. “I can’t say exactly” is extraordinarily feeble in comparison, and “put Britain first” is a back-peddling – and incidentally sounds like something that the leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, had suggested during the course of the day (where, noticeably, he took the opportunity to slur Nigel Farage).
As mentioned above, this rendezvous between Rothwell and the BBC had not been the first time that Rothwell had appeared on BBC. Earlier in the day he conducted a telephone interview with the Corporation – one that, apparently, went out live at around 14:51. This interview is embedded in a tweet (here) broadcast at 15:00. In this interview there was no mention at all of Mair’s war cry. Indeed, that Rothwell, originally, had nothing at all to say about it was reflected in other reporting – as we shall see in 3 examples.
Firstly, there was the BBC’s own website – which the author captured at 6pm on 16th June. The article included a partial transcript of the interview, and at that time, there was still no mention of a shout:
“Cafe owner Clarke Rothwell, who witnessed the attack, said he heard a “loud popping noise that sounded like a balloon burst – a loud balloon”.
“When I looked round there’s a man stood there in his 50s with a white baseball cap on and a jacket with a gun, an old fashioned looking gun in his hand,” he said.
“He shot this lady once and then he shot her again, he fell to the floor, leant over shot her once more in the face area.
“Somebody tried to grab him, wrestling with him and then he wielded a knife, like a hunting knife, just started lunging at her with a knife half a dozen times. People were screaming and running from the area”.
Please note that this BBC page seems to have been updated in the intervening period. The text of Rothwell’s first interview is not changed – but the video of his second interview has been added – along with this sub headline: “One eyewitness told the BBC they heard her attacker shout “put Britain first” at least twice beforehand.”
Secondly, the Guardian also made reference to that first Rothwell telephone interview:
Clarke Rothwell, another witness, told BBC News there was a direct altercation between Cox and a man carrying a gun, who “purposefully” targeted her.
“He shot this lady and then shot her again,” he said. “He lent down. Someone was wrestling with him and he was wielding a knife and lunging at her. Three times she was shot. People were trying to help her.
“Then he ran off down a one-way street. Me and my mate drove round to try and find him.”
This article is the same one in which the Guardian attributes the “Britain First” statement to Graeme Howard, and the link is to be found above. Please note that in its present form this article still does not have Rothwell making the claim.
Third and finally is the Daily Mail, and at the time the author captured the page (see above re Tahir) it had this – and only this – with respect to Clarke Rothwell:
Witness Clarke Rothwell who runs a cafe near where the attack took place, told the BBC he believed the MP had been shot and stabbed multiple times.
He said: ‘He [the attacker] was stabbing her as well, he was stabbing her with his knife.’
Please note that the Daily Mail changes the content of its pages quite frequently – the link provided above will arrive at the page in a more recent and much altered state where the article will apportion to Rothwell a larger share of the responsibility for hearing the shout. Unfortunately, a cached copy of the earlier version – the page as looked like when the author first saw it – doesn’t seem to be available.
Taking this information into consideration, it appears to the author that, originally, Rothwell didn’t make the claim about a shout of “Britain First”, and the testimony was only attributed to him later. Sure, the author has also found other articles like one at the Metro (here), published at 13:59 16th June, which suggests that Rothwell did indeed give the testimony long before the Telegraph reported it at 15:32. However, this Metro article conveniently explains that its source is the Telegraph – which didn’t start reporting the Rothwell/Britain-First link until 15.32. Like other Media online, the Metro updates its pages, and the publish date becomes meaningless in terms of establishing when certain content appeared during the life time of the page.
Before moving on, just to establish with another example a probable likely general time for when Rothwell started to become connected with the “Britain First” shout testimony, the Independent cited the Huddersfield Examiner as having talked to Rothwell (see link above), and this Examiner story (here) first appeared at 15.29 – which is much closer to the appearance of Rothwell’s name on the Telegraph’s timeline – namely 15.32.
To wrap up so far, then, weighing up the balance of things, the author is of the opinion that the “Britain First” shouts didn’t happen. On one hand there are witnesses who categorically said it didn’t – they even refute claims attributed to them by the Media – on the other hand there is the invented witness, Howard, and the shifting Rothwell (Cafe owner or Gas Fitter?), who appears to have embellished his story from one BBC interview to the next. Why he would do this can’t be speculated on, but we do know that Clarke Rothwell appears to have been a member of the BNP, and this could have been a sore point of leverage for some unscrupulous party who wanted him to cooperate more particularly. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the BNP was famously infiltrated by the British intelligence agencies, and there is speculation that it, and indeed Britain First, exist specifically so that anti-Establishment political activity can be tarred with the same brush of extremism.
Having decided that the “Britain First” shout did not happen on the ground, one naturally asks the question: where did it come from? Well, we already have seen it placed in the mouth of a witness by the Guardian – but given the nature of the Corporate Media, there doesn’t need to be a single source. The author has been on a hunt, and there is another suspect. We’ll get to the who and how shortly after we have walked through the trail that the author took.
In the Telegraph’s live feed, link above, at 14.36, the following report appeared:
Gunman shouted ‘Britain First’, witness claims
Some witnesses at the scene are claiming that the man who shot Ms Cox shouted “Britain First”.
Speaking to Sky News, he said the man walked very slowly away from the scene after the attack.
That Sky News had issued a report at this time about a shout of “Britain First” was confirmed by Breitbart in its live feed coverage. The following was published there before 14.40:
Sky News has reported an eye-witness who said the attacker shouted “Britain First” as he committed the attack.
That Sky News had issued a report at this time about a shout of “Britain First” was confirmed by Breitbart in its live feed coverage. The following was published there before 14.40:
Sky News has reported an eye-witness who said the attacker shouted “Britain First” as he committed the attack.
This Sky report has been impossible to track down – but there is something that we can assume about it: that it didn’t name the witness(es) for any of the regurgitations to quote, and therefore the claim of anyone shouting “Britain First” is completely unsubstantiated by this thread of reporting.
Luckily, it appears that Jim Waterson, political editor at BuzzFeedUK, had been watching Sky; he tweeted this:
Sky News reporting the attacker shouted “Britain First” by citing Maria Eagle’s tweet, although Eagle is in turn citing Sky News via the MEN
— Jim Waterson (@jimwaterson) June 16, 2016
(And a copy can be found here).
Maria Eagle is the MP for Garston and Halewood, and noticeably has been active very recently in what has become known as Project Grief (or Project Terror) - the latest development of the Establishment’s anti-Brexit Project Fear.
The tweet that Waterson refers to was deleted later on the 16th – as reported by Breitbart at 17:40 on their live feed (link above), but a copy of the tweet can be found at United Politics: here. This Maria Eagle tweet, published at 14:28, reads as follows:
@Jo_Cox1 attacker shouted “Britain First” says eyewitness.
Confusingly, this MEN tweet has the headline “Labour MP Jo Cox ‘shot and stabbed’ outside West Yorkshire library – latest updates” but doesn’t appear to specifically mention the “Britain First” shout. However, after some searching the author did find something relevant produced by the Manchester Evening News via a live feed – which at 14:21 reported this:
Elderly attacker ‘shouted Britain First’
The man who gunned down Ms Cox shouted ‘Britain First’, an eyewitness claims.
Speaking to Sky News, the witness said the shooter looked to be in his 60s or 70s.
He said the man walked very slowly away from the scene after the attack.
So, we definitely have MEN citing Sky News. But actually, unless something has been missed, Maria Eagle’s tweet doesn’t reference the relevant information. Therefore, even if Sky News cited Maria Eagle, according to the the evidence, the self-referencing loop cannot be closed. But there is another clue – a tweet by the Mirror that went out at 14.26:
Elderly attacker ‘shouted Britain First’ before MP Jo Cox shooting and stabbing http://bit.ly/1S6YrYk
Please note, this tweet was cited as the source of the first ever reference to “Britain First” in an incredibly swiftly created and brand new section on Jo Cox’s Wikipedia page. The author therefore assumes that it must be one of the very first pieces of data to make mention of the slogan. In this tweet we see the reference to the elderly attacker which replicates a detail in the MEN report. The content suggests that the source is Sky News – whether directly or through the MEN.
So it appears, to the author at least – and if the BuzzFeedUK editor was watching properly and can be believed – that Sky News was the source of a report – featuring an unnamed witness – that claimed that the slogan “Britain First” had been uttered at Birstall, and not only that, but additionally created a fake credit to Maria Eagle.
Did it do this to cover its tracks as it created the Britain First myth and attributed it to a witness that still remains nameless? Did Maria Eagle delete her tweet because she figured out that she would look like the source of the lie? What we can say at the end of this lengthy piece is that the Guardian has almost certainly been caught in the act of inventing witness testimony. If the Guardian does it, why should we not suppose that Sky News does it? If they both do that, why should we not suppose that, in the absence of a real person claiming responsibility for the claim, someone in the media – or someone in another arm of government (for that is what Media is) leant on Clarke Rothwell to become the owner of the story? If the media can do all that, why should we not suppose it didn’t collaborate across so-called political divisions to invent and promulgate a narrative to sensationalise what could actually be an everyday tragedy – a random act of craziness by a mentally ill person – and do it for the expediency of its anti-British political masters? Finally, if we are shocked and disgusted by what the Media appears capable of, then we need to be disgusted by ourselves for we are the ones who give it power to abuse. If we have been naïve, then we quickly need to stop, to understand the real purpose of the Media, and subsequently starve it to death.
In the previous article in this series, “Thanet Rigged – Part One: Tory and Labour’s Great Love”, it was realised that if the numbers voting UKIP held up from the Thanet District Council election across to the Thanet South Westminster constituency election, then the Tories could not have won by such a large margin as they did (see Result P in Part One). In fact, it looks like the Tories could only have won the constituency election at all if hundreds of the people who had voted Labour in the council election abandoned that position to bolster Craig Mackinlay, the Tory Westminster candidate.
In the first instance, then, we need to consider how likely it would be that UKIP voters, who had elected their party’s first ever District Council, would pass up the opportunity to elect their party’s leader to a seat at Westminster. The author certainly doesn’t think it very likely at all. Then we must consider how likely it would be that up to 2000 Labour voters would turn Tory at a General Election. The author feels that this is something that is likely – some voters on either side of the fake political spectrum understand implicitly the nature of British politics and are happy to play along because it benefits them to do so; they would quite happily act to prevent anything happening that would disrupt the established system. Moreover, the Tory and Labour election campaigns in Thanet South more or less instructed their followers to vote tactically to deny Nigel Farage – most brazenly when Mackinlay appeared with the Labour man holding a “don’t let UKIP break our great love” heart. This dynamic means that the Tory win could very well have been organic (that is, as organic as rigging with a conspiracy to promote tactical voting can be) – but the author’s feeling is that perhaps the Establishment just couldn’t rely on an outbreak of naturally occurring “great love” and knew that it would have to help things along to ensure that the union would take place. This would especially be the case if, as mentioned above, any kind of convincing Tory win depended on UKIP-council-voter defections – we’ve already dismissed as not likely, and seen evidence to suggest that it didn’t happen.
Indeed, that someone physically meddled with ballot papers to engineer a Tory win by more than 2000 votes is a possible explanation for the extraordinary failure Thanet Council managed to achieve when it did not process the election in anything remotely like a reasonable timely fashion, nor in line with expectations set by performances in previous elections. In fact, fixing might be the best explanation we have – the people who ran the Thanet South election, even though they have produced an official statement as required by regulation, have failed entirely to provide a feasible reason for why certain postal ballot papers did not arrive at the count until 7 and a half hours after the polling stations had closed.
Not only was there a motive, then, there also existed on Thursday 7th May, in Thanet, the opportunity for someone to meddle with ballot papers. Furthermore, by examining the official statement made by the Thanet Returning Officer, Madeline Homer, we find that if anyone wanted to interfere with the election, then they had the means to do it. The Thanet South election was badly-staged – at least according to the information available to us. Because it is safe to say that it is so limited that it seems that we are actually being prevented from scrutinising what happened at Thanet South in the appallingly deficient statement made by Madeline Homer; it is obfuscation that effectively amounts to a cover-up. As the saying goes, proof of a cover-up is proof of a conspiracy, and we must consider the possibility that the extraordinary circumstances around the handling of postal votes, and the fact of what amounts to a smokescreen has been thrown up around those circumstances, combines to create grounds for suspicion of vote rigging.
But that’s only for starters. We must also throw into the mix the notion that there was pre-knowledge of the result as evidenced in particular by one corporate-media journalist whose “duping delight” seemingly got the better of her. Then there is the fact that in Thanet South there were 92 ballot papers rejected because of the lack of an official mark on them; in Thanet North this number was 105. The reader should type “’want of official mark” in a search engine and notice how many times it appears in conjunction with the number “0” – meaning most elections never see a ballot paper rejected for this reason. In fact, to illustrate how extraordinary this is, consider that in Thanet combined, this time, there were 197 ballots rejected for want of an official mark – that’s 31% of the total for the entire 2010 General Election when there were 640 overall. It’s another highly suspicious piece of circumstantial evidence.
It’s also been pointed out to the author that at the 2015 election there was a general trend in East Kent for turnout to fall from 2010 figures. Turnout fell in Ashford, Canterbury, Chatham & Aylesford, Dover, Faversham & Mid Kent, Folkestone & Hythe, Gillingham & Rainham, and Maidstone & The Weald – that’s 8 constituencies – by an average of 1.2%. In Thanet South, there was a 4% increase. (There were also increases in Rochester, 1.46%; Sittingbourne, 0.96% and Thanet North, 2.62%). 4% of Thanet South’s 2010 electorate (where boundary changes had already been applied thus having no effect) is about 3000 people. Could the evidence of disproportionate numbers of illicit ballot papers and trend-bucking turnout increases be telling a story of postal ballot fraud (the postal ballots seem to be the source of the problem) wherein enough bogus Tory voters are materialised after someone worked out how many were needed? Or did the fraudsters in fact spend those many hours when the postal votes were effectively missing swapping out Labour and UKIP votes for Tory ones?
Well, of course, this seems very fanciful, and the reader might be astonished at what might seem like a sudden outburst of nonsense, but the reader should appreciate that the author is writing from a perspective whereby he has spent some time looking into how postal ballots should be handled according to regulations, and how there were many exemplar councils who managed to handle them without seriously stuffing up their election counts. When the reader understands these things too, he or she should also arrive at the conclusion that there really was no good legitimate reason for things to play out in the Thanet South election the way they did. And if there are no legitimate reasons, then by default there must only be illegitimate ones – reasons that obviously can’t be admitted to openly.
Postal voting normality
The following information is gleaned from government-produced guidance documents for election staff entitled “UK Parliamentary general election and local government elections in England on 7 May 2015: guidance for (Acting) Returning Officers”, and specifically from “Part D – Absent voting” and “Part E – Verifying and counting the votes”.
It appears that postal ballot papers can be processed during the run up to an election day. The regulations seem to allow for sessions before the close of polling when councils can execute initial procedure on votes that have been submitted and accumulated since the issuance of ballot papers, or a previous session. Any number of postal vote opening sessions can be held according to requirements, and they can be held long before polling day. In fact, the guidance from the electoral commission (Part D) says this:
3.32 Your first opening session should be held within a couple of days of your first issue. Even if you have not received a high number of returned postal votes by then, you should still conduct a session at that time and take the 13 opportunity to test your equipment and assess your workflows under real conditions. After this first session you should gauge whether your estimate of the number of postal vote opening sessions required is sufficient or whether it will need to be revised. Nothing prevents the opening of postal votes being carried out on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and indeed you may wish to consider doing so, particularly if additional postal vote opening sessions are found to be required.
(Please note, a council is legally obliged to give election agents 48 hours notice of these sessions so that they can attend if so desire).
We have actually jumped the gun a little bit and need to back track. In this initial process of postal ballot opening, there are two sorts of receptacles that we need to concern ourselves with. The first is the “postal voters’ ballot boxes”. These are used to store returned postal vote packets – i.e. all the material returned by the voter in a covering envelope. The second sort of receptacle is the “postal ballot boxes” which are used to store the actual ballot papers after they have been extracted from the aforementioned covering envelopes. The moving of material from one set of receptacles to another is the process that is executed in postal vote opening sessions, and it is achieved in four steps (the titles of which are presented here the same way that they are in the guidance):
Stage 1: opening of the postal voters’ ballot box
All the postal vote packets that have been returned and collected in the postal voter’s ballot box are accessed at the same time. Each packet is opened, and each packet should contain something called a voting statement, as well as another envelope containing the actual completed ballot paper.
Stage 2: checking the personal identifiers
The voting statements will have the voters signature on it, and this is checked with a personal identifier record – or a copy of the signature that the council will already have in its possession. If all is well, then the envelope with the ballot slip in it goes forward to the next stage of the process.
Stage 3: opening of postal ballot paper envelopes
On opening the envelope containing the ballot paper, an official mark on that paper is compared with one on the envelope – the two should coincide. If the vote does not pass this piece of scrutiny it is rejected. If it is deemed safe, it is then placed in one of the postal ballot boxes. Note well, ballot papers are meant to be handled face down at this stage so that no indication can be got of how the vote was actually cast.
Stage 4: sealing the postal ballot boxes
The number of postal ballot papers to be sealed in each postal ballot box is recorded.
At this stage, the postal ballot papers are all ready to go forward to the verification and the count – referred to together as the count – which are the two features of the final electoral process that happens on election night after the polling stations have closed. Potentially, then, come the eve of the election, it should be the case that most postal votes will have been processed ready for the count. Of course, there is scope for packets to arrive late – but there are contingencies for this: the guidance stipulates that there should be collections of postal ballot envelopes when they arrive at the council in the mail, or are handed in at polling stations during polling day; it advises that such measures should be taken to “reduce the risk of delays to the start time of the count” – it makes sense, then, for as many postal votes as possible be processed ahead of the close of the polls.
The count takes place at a venue that has been appointed with a mind to realising guiding principles of speediness, accuracy and total transparency. The count venue is where ballot boxes are brought from polling stations and postal ballot boxes are brought from the place where they have been processed in the manner explained above – there are even guidelines about how the boxes need to be delivered so as to ensure integrity. Both sorts of box will have a record with them that tells of the number of votes they contain – we have seen how that comes to be the case with postal votes, and of course at polling stations, election operatives record the number of ballots issued to voters as they visit to cast their vote.
And so, armed with this information, during the verification, election staff work to establish that the number of ballot papers in any ballot box(es) is the same as the one recorded for it. Verification produces a figure with which the final count outcome must reconcile.
The postal ballot papers are potentially the very first to be processed in verification. They can potentially be on site at the Count Venue at 10pm when the polling stations close. In fact, the guidance makes a point of stressing the importance of the early verification of postal ballots:
4.9 All packets and ballot boxes containing postal ballot papers must be subject to verification in the same way as any ballot box from a polling station. As these will often be some of the first boxes being verified, they present an opportunity to create confidence in the process and in the count as a whole.
The count itself is self-explanatory to a certain degree – except to point out that during it, and indeed the verification, ballot papers are handled face-up to show the way the vote has been cast. Additionally, and it is of particular interest for our purposes, at this stage the ballot boxes are mixed together – the following is what the Part E guidance says about it word for word:
6.5 You must mix the ballot papers so that ballot papers from each ballot box are mixed with ballot papers from at least one other ballot box, and mix the postal ballot papers with ballot papers from at least one other ballot box before sorting and counting the votes.
This is a practice that is surprising to discover – the guidance offers no reasons for it (not that the author could find in any case) – and the reader is asked to take especial note. Another few things to notice before we move on are as follows.
Another important rule that must be brought to the reader’s attention is that a Parliamentary election has priority over local elections:
6.2 You do not have to wait until you have completed the verification for all polls for which you are the RO [Returning Officer] taking on the combined functions, before you can start counting the votes for the UK Parliamentary election.
And given that there is a desirability to begin the counting of the Parliamentary election within 4 hours of the polls closing (see Part E, 6.1) a Returning Officer should understand that there is a necessity to verify the Parliamentary vote before all other polls are verified.
What happened at Thanet South
With some of the official guidance now digested, we turn to the strange occurrences at Thanet on election night. In fact, people really understanding that a very odd thing had happened in the day after the General Election when the Thanet Council election results came in to confirm UKIP’s first ever district-level administration. People expressing themselves on Twitter under the motto #thanetrigged who thought it incredibly difficult to believe that Farage couldn’t win where his party was so triumphant also thought it odd that “journalist” Isabel Hardman seemed to know about the result at 12:38am on the Friday morning. “Very good source tells me”, tweeted Hardman, “Farage *has* lost South Thanet. I’d be surprised if they were wrong. But we’ll see.”
Before we try to comprehend this message any better, it is extremely important to understand just how very late the counting was at Thanet. The Returning Officer, a Madeline Homer, via her later-released statement, entered an official time of 6am on Friday 8th May as the moment when her staff began to count the votes for the Thanet South parliamentary election – although even on this supposedly simple fact, Homer is at risk of being incorrect. At the time, Ben Rossington, presumably of the Daily Mirror, tweeted the following at 7:17am:
THEY’VE STARTED COUNTING!!!! Whoo hoo. Thanet Sth result ONLY four hours away. Turn out 70%
On its own this doesn’t necessarily contradict Madeline Homer’s official statement – but the following, which was posted at 7:05 on a Telegraph live updates page, certainly does. It confirms that the count had indeed still not started at 6am
More delays in Thanet South, which Nigel Farage hopes to win, with officials disclosing that counting had still not started by 6am, pushing the declaration back to at least 10am.
In actual fact, the declaration finally came around 10:30am, meaning the count took 3 hours and (about) 13 minutes (going by Rossington’s tweet). Many have pointed to previous declaration times for South Thanet (1997: 3:12am; 2001: 3:33am; 2005: 4:44am; 2010: 3:17am) to illustrate the disastrously late declaration of 2015. However, the thing to focus on is the predicted declaration time of 6am which was published by the Press Association ahead of the election on a webpage dedicated to predicted times for all constituencies. Each time in this list was an estimation based either on council projections, or on previous declaration times; perhaps we should suppose that the prediction for South Thanet’s was got by the former method.
This 6am time is an important piece of information. From it we can perhaps discover how late the declaration time was as opposed to the Council’s own expectation. If the count took between 3 and 4 hours, which we know that it did, and if this was according to expectations, then the verification would have been anticipated to be complete between 2 and 3 o-clock. Theory is one thing, practice is another; we know from the council itself that verification did not start until after 5:30 am – that would be about 3 hours, perhaps, after it was supposed to have finished. These are the figures that really convict. 5.30 am, at the earliest – and especially given that there was no exit poll at Thanet South – would be the first time that anyone would begin to have any inclination about what the results looked like.
So, returning to the psychic Hardman, before the now infamous tweet, she actually posted the following on the Spectator’s live blog at 12:19am
I have intelligence from within Ukip that Nigel Farage has not won South Thanet.
At 5 hours before anyone at Thanet had even looked at a vote etched on a ballot pape there is apparently awareness of the result in certain quarters. Now, Hardman’s source could have been a UKIP one as she claimed, and then again, Hardman could have been lying – she is a “journalist” after all. The point is the certainty of the language pointing to the certainty of someone having foreknowledge of the outcome – pointing to someone being privy to face-up ballot papers long before anyone should have been able. Could this be true, and who would be accessing ballot papers who would tell corporate-media “journalists” [arguably intelligence agents] about it? (Another question is why would anyone cause the conjecture in an operation that wasn’t supposed to be noticed – to which the short answer would be “duping delight” – please look it up).
In regards to this mystery, the most interesting forecast came at 11:47pm – so earlier than Hardman’s – in the Telegraph’s live update website:
Christopher Hope is our man on the scene. He reports that UKIP and the Conservatives are saying it’s “tight” with less than 1,000 votes in it. There was a good Ukip turnout this morning, but Conservatives showed strongly later on. Ballots are still being validated, and no counting starts until 2am. The result is due at 6am.
Christopher writes: A Tory source said: “It is too close to call. We think it is definitely tight. They had a good start to day and we had a good finish.”
Most of the information in this report about what is happening at the count is very likely the parroting of a council announcement – so it’s a holding statement that doesn’t necessarily reflect any truth – but the very interesting thing is the report from the Tory source who knows that his party had finished well. We are supposed to think he is talking about a late surge at the polling stations. In fact, could he be talking about the actions taken to engineer the Tory candidate into a position of victory?
What we really need to do is to look at what Thanet Council did during the course of the night to explain why the declaration could have been so abnormally late (if there is a rational explanation, then there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy). Theoretically, at least, there is one place to look to ascertain facts that is not dependant on hearsay through tweeting or piece-to-camera-reporting “journalists”. This is the statement by a Returning Officer must explain him or herself should it have come to pass that the counting at his or her constituency did not start before 2am on the morning after election day.
As well as the one for Thanet North and South (which can be found here and here), completed by the same woman already mentioned above, there are lots of these on the internet – after all, there is a requirement by Act of Parliament to submit one of these things to the Electoral Commission and to post a copy on the local authorities web space. In these statements the Returning Officer has to explain two things: 1) what measures were taken to ensure that the count took place on time, and then 2) what actually went wrong in that process. We are going to deal with these in order with regards Thanet South, but before we do so, we are going to examine other examples of Returning Officer Statements from other constituencies chosen randomly, and we are going to concentrate on the handling of postal votes because this seemed to be the main issue for Thanet.
Reports by other Returning Officers versus that produced by Madeline Homer
The Returning Officer for Nottingham South (downloads) reported that she had a postal vote opening team that relocated (from council offices presumably) to the count location on the day. It seems that no ballot opening session had happened prior to the election day, but at 1pm, on the day and after the morning mail, the staff started processing all the envelopes they had by then received. We are informed that this involved scanning them with software networked from council offices as part of the identification process. Another session then occurred at 7pm, which meant that postal votes that had since accumulated at polling stations could be added to the process. This 7pm session continued after the polls closed and polling station staff had handed any late postal votes into the process.
The Nottingham Returning Officer notes that there was an unprecedented amount of postal votes handed in during the last few hours of polling. He also confirmed that the council’s most experienced staff were involved in dealing with the postal vote opening so that it did not impinge on the timeliness of the verification. Indeed, the Returning Officer reports that all postal ballot papers were handed over in plenty of time before the end of the verification process. The count started at 3.30am.
In Hemel Hempstead (statement here), where counting started at 3:55am, the Returning Officer reported that an adjacent room to the count location was used to process postal votes received on the day of the election – this suggests that the council had been processing them in the run up. In fact, there is confirmation in the other section of the statement (the “what went wrong bit”) where it was reported that the team had been “able to keep pace with the arrival of envelopes in the lead up to polling day, despite some early difficulties with software releases”. Secure internet had been established to “enable the remote use of election computer software” – so, like Nottingham South, they could use council-linked computers to process the postal votes. The Returning Officer reports that she expected 900 postal packages to be submitted to Presiding Officers at the polling stations – two sweeps would be made during the day to collect them. The prediction was close in the end – 1000 postal votes were processed on the day of the election and were ready to be included in the verification process.
At Stevenage (statement here), where the count began at 2:10am (because it was decided that staff should have a break at 1:45am when verification had finished), the Returning Officer reported an anticipation of a large proportion of postal votes. He reported that provisions had been in place to collect postal votes from polling stations and deal with them securely.
The Welwyn Borough Council’s Returning Officer (for the Welwyn Hatfield constituency – statement here) reported that postal votes were processed during the election ahead of polling day. “Throughout the election and on the day of the election, arrangements were out in place to process the volume of returned postal votes. On the eve of the election those received had all been opened, scanned, gone through the verification process and transported to the verification/count venue to be added to the ballot papers for counting after the final verification had been completed”. [It’s not clear here, actually, if the postal ballots went into the main verification process]. What we can take from this again is that the council in question had put in place measures to ensure that postal vote processing did not delay the count.
Now, what do we think that Thanet Council did? In the relevant section of the Returning Officer’s statement, Madeline Homer entered this:
Please refer to the chapter on “Factors influencing the timing of the count” within the count toolkit (starting at paragraph 3.12) as a guide for the types of steps which, as a minimum, should be covered.
Needless to say, this is an utter disgrace. Not providing information by which we can adjudicate as to the reasonableness of the lateness of the Thanet South count suggests that we would find that the information wouldn’t lead to any such conclusion. In other words, if it was clear that all things were in place to ensure a timely count, it would be very odd indeed if the count wasn’t timely after all. Because the statement by the Returning Officer doesn’t offer that opportunity, it can be said to constitute a cover-up.
In more trouble for Thanet’s hapless Returning Officer, it is declared in her statement that the official start of the count was at 6am. This is not what observers were reporting on the ground at the time, as we have seen. Nevertheless, she did manage to fill out the second section of the statement, which is the part about how her processes (which we weren’t allowed to know about) went wrong so that the count started after 2am. Homer made 8 points, which can be summarised as follows:
1. The fact that there were two parliamentary constituency, district and parish elections all on the same day impacted the time it took to complete the Verification.
2. “Virtually all the polling stations had three ballot boxes” – possibly meaning that there was one box for each election – “and each had very large ballot papers that took longer to unfold and therefore to verify”.
3. The turnout was up by 5% – or rather, this is what Homer claimed.
4. There was a delay in receiving ballot boxes from the Dover wards of the constituency. Additionally, Homer claimed that her team had to verify the district and parish election ballot boxes from the two Dover wards (plus in relation to the Thanet North election, the same from wards in Canterbury). However, the author wonders why these boxes did not go to the councils who have generally jurisdiction over those local elections.
5. This one is copied word for word, because it is so important:
“Postal vote delays – we did not get the verified postal votes back after verification by the postal voting team into the count centre until after 3:30am”.
6. Due to a limitation in space at the count centre, “all the late received” postal votes were not “verified” at the count venue. Along with 5, this is very important, and we’ll analyse it shortly.
7. Verification was not completed until after 5:30am.
8. The venue of the count was too small for the staff that the Returning Officer really would have liked. In other words, there weren’t enough people (120) because of the size of the count venue.
Most of these excuses are just not good enough. As we have seen, there is guidance for Returning Officers whereby warnings are given to prepare adequately for exactly the sort of problems being complained of. Once again, because we don’t know exactly how Homer implemented this guidance, we don’t know if the failings were due to a lack of foresight and preparation, or something else beyond the Returning Officer’s control.
Inferences from Homer’s statement – how the cheat might have been accomplished
The really important points to look at are 5, 6 and 7. Homer seems to be saying that the postal votes were not verified at the count venue; i.e. they were verified at another place before they were brought to the count. But which votes are Homer actually referring to? She reported that “all the late received” postal votes could not be verified at the count centre. Does she mean postal votes that came in during the day on polling day, or does she mean all postal votes that happened to come late to the count – so “all” or “some”. If it’s the former, then is she indicating that the postal voting sessions were held on polling day, and implying that this onerous task be the cause of the lateness? If the latter, would she actually be referring to the same lot of ballot papers in points 5 and 6 and thus be implying that this portion of the ballot papers in fact comprised a good many that took a long time to process?
As the reader must see – Homer’s statement is stunningly insufficient, although there are some things we can take away, with varying degrees of certainty. The first is that, possibly, lots of postal votes were introduced into the process on the last day. However, there should have been enough time in the day (and before the election day itself, for that matter) to process postal ballots.
Secondly – and this is for definite – an unspecified number of postal votes were out of the loop for a long time. There is really no normal situation not covered by the guidance by which any number of them should arrive at the count more than 7 and a half hours after the polls close. If they really were verified at a remote location, do we know that election agents and candidates were able to supervise this process as they would have been able to do at the main count? If not, this means that there would have been an opportunity to access the ballot papers outside of sealed boxes.
Summarising then, either a very large number of postal ballot packages were introduced at the last moment, or the postal ballot boxes were delayed by something extraordinary; the most likely case is the latter one. On top of this, we have the fact that all too conveniently the Returning Officer failed to account properly for the delay – meaning the extraordinary happening is not explained.
Nevertheless, we have, thanks to what Homer does impart, a better idea about how it would have been possible to cheat in the Thanet South election. If postal votes were handled without supervision, and they turned up at a count centre to be counted on trust that they were legitimate and the number of them conformed with a list of voters, it might have been possible to introduce ones that never came from a voter. Admittedly, that would be a risky avenue to choose given that all votes are meant to be accounted for (although, as we know and as has been demonstrated, in reality there would be no risk of an investigation that would discover any anomalies). It surely would be even easier to have a small team of people substitute votes from Labour and UKIP to the Tories by replacing ballot papers (from UKIP to a much lesser extent because Farage would have been expected to do very well, and it wouldn’t do to cause suspicion with a much-deflated UKIP result), or changing how the vote was cast on them. There would have been plenty of time to be painstaking in such an exercise. Likewise, surely there would have been plenty of time to attempt the following fix: wait until the end of polling and, noticing which postal voters hadn’t responded, produce votes on their behalf and introduce them into the process. Again, this would probably rely on an unsupervised postal opening session. If all else fails, then there are ways of electoral fraud that are already tried and trusted – ways that mean that the vote verification process doesn’t have to be commandeered or infiltrated.
Unfortunately, we will never know for sure if Thanet South was rigged or not, because we will never be able to look at evidence that isn’t circumstantial – we will never get to examine the ballot papers and supporting documentation that we think would be so damaging to the British Establishment. Ballot papers only have to be kept for a year before they are destroyed, and the seal that supposedly makes them inaccessible can only be ordered broken by the High Court or Parliament. Critics have in the past voiced concerns about how, in reality, security around the storing of ballot papers is inexcusably – deliberately – lax so that the authorities (intelligence agencies, police etc) could get amongst the old votes and see which voters voted for fringe parties. Apparently, it hasn’t also occurred that if intelligence agencies and police could do this at that point in the process, they could do it at any point. Apparently, it hasn’t occurred that intelligence agencies could use this above-the-law access to change the outcome of elections. Indeed, if intelligence agencies could change the votes, it would be more efficient to do so than searching through millions of ballot papers to discover “dangerous” individuals by how they are voting – especially when people are nowadays voting for a “fringe party” in their millions.
There was perhaps no more greater demonstration of the determination of the British Establishment to keep Nigel Farage out of a Westminster seat than when the Labour and Tory candidates in the Thanet South constituency appeared together, during their campaigning, one on either side of a “don’t let UKIP break our great love” heart.
Unfortunately, for some unknown reason Britons will not take such statements of LibLabCon unity at face value – although at the same time some are willing to forget and abandon their left/right opposition to the other camp on the fake political spectrum (otherwise known as the “great love”) in the face of a UKIP insurgency. The subject of united Tory and Labour disapprobation, Farage, was voted into second place come the night of the General Election – or so we are told. In actual fact, the Thanet South result was surrounded by circumstances so suspicious that it looked like a rather particularly brazen extension of the wider campaign to deny Farage at all costs. A fortnight prior to election day, a Survation opinion poll had UKIP on 39% – 9 points ahead of the Tories. On the 9th May it became apparent that UKIP had won control of Thanet District Council by quite an overwhelming margin in terms of seats, and by 36% to the Tories’ 32. The anomaly was Farage’s performance on May 7th, and the fact of all the unusual happenings in the handling of the ballot papers has produced scope for critics to say that that performance can only be explained by Establishment fixing.
Officially, the potentially criminal aspects of Operation Stop-Farage have been covered over with the biggest lie of the election, which is that voters were scared of a possible SNP-Labour coalition – in the aftermath Farage himself supposed it to be the case (and the author has it on good authority that this rationale was helpful to the Kent Police in excusing their own failure regarding the incident after they had wrapped up their ludicrously inadequate investigation into possible electoral fraud). As has been mentioned previously at this site, the threat of a SNP bogeyman – writ much larger in the corporate-media than it could ever really present – is not the reason for the Cameron Regime (and this becomes clear the more time one spends looking at election results), but in the context of a far reaching fix, this story appears to be precondtitioning given out by the Establishment so that people could rationalise the result of the election. So, what is being proposed here is that the very existence of a nationally-broad cover story that bears little relation to reality is evidence of a big act of nefariousness – illegal interference – that affected the outcome of the 2015 General Election.
Unfortunately, there can be no definitive proof because crucial data is not available to us. Any evidence that suggests a fix will not be widely appreciated or believed; nevertheless, there is evidence. As far as Thanet South is concerned, there are two elements to look at: the vote numbers of the various polls held on 7th May, and the goings-on at the Thanet count. We are going, in this article, to look at the first part of this, and then there will be a follow up looking at the second element. There will also be other subsequent articles at this site looking at other General Election results, and this is how we will build up a universal picture by which patriots may be able to create wide spread doubt about the very legitimacy of the current EU vassal at Westminster as it contrives to destroy British nationhood and the sovereignty of the British people.
We can compare the results of the Thanet District Council with the Thanet South Westminster constituency election that was held on the same day – although this is not straightforward. First of all, there are no official ward-by-ward breakdowns for a Westminster constituency – we have to tally all the District Council ward results together and contrast that against the one constituency one. Secondly, in the council elections, parties are competing for up to 3 seats per ward, so each big party will most likely have more than one candidate in each council election. Secondly, the Thanet South constituency contains two wards that are constituent parts of Dover District Council – these are Little Stour and Ashstone, and Sandwich. As it happened, in the Thanet council wards, the Tories, Labour and UKIP had exactly the same number of people standing – as such we can directly compare votes cast. However, in the Dover wards, UKIP and Labour had less candidates than the Tories. This means that there were more votes cast for the Tories without necessarily reflecting true levels of support. We can’t assume that fewer candidates for each party shows a complete absence of backing in the area – which the results necessarily will suggest. To better understand the voting in the Dover wards, we need to extrapolate how many votes Labour and UKIP would have got if they had each stood 3 candidates. This requires some readjustment of the data – which will be explained more later.
First of all, let’s look at the total number of votes cast (i.e. for all candidates) and the percentages for each party in the Thanet wards (where the Lib Dems did not feature):
Result A (out of 93709 total votes):
UKIP 33770 votes, 36%; Tories 29680 votes, 31.7%; Labour 25551 votes, 27.3%.
We can find how many votes each voter cast on average in each ward (total votes divided by ballot papers issued). If we tally all the votes cast for each party (add up all votes for candidates of the same political colour), we can divide each total by vote-per-voter average to surmise how votes would stack up if only one had been available for every elector. Here are findings after the mangling:
Result B (out of 41235 total votes):
UKIP 14803 votes; 35.9%; Tories 13285 votes; 32.2%; Labour 11216; 28.2%
The bottom line is that support for UKIP in the Thanet council wards was huge – (for reasons about to be explained) it suggests that in the Westminster election, with a seat for Farage at stake, the party must have come first in that stage of the race.
If we now just add the raw votes of the Dover wards to the Thanet ones (see Result A), without any mangling, this is what we get:
Result C (out of 114009 total votes):
UKIP 35566 votes; 31.2%; Tories 42367 votes; 37.2%; Labour 27469 votes; 24.1%.
And if we extrapolate the vote-per-voter result from Result C:
Result D (out of a total of 49709 votes):
UKIP 15565 votes; 31.3%; Tories 18570 votes; 37.6%; Labour 12017; 24.2%
Now, compare Result D to the actual votes at the general election:
Result E (out of 49401 total votes):
UKIP: 16026 votes; 32.4%; Tories: 18838 votes; 38.1%; Labour: 11740 votes; 23.8%
While the reader is taking this in, notice that the number of total voters in the council elections was very close to the number of voters in the Thanet South constituency election – there is a small difference that might be to do with eligibility issues where a voter can vote in the council elections, but can’t vote in the Westminster one (we aren’t going to worry about it here too much). The obvious assumption to make is that we seem to be dealing with the same people casting votes in the two elections. So, Results E and D confirm what we know about most UKIP voters – they aren’t going to vote tactically for the LibLabCon in a General Election. On the face of things, the UKIP vote held in the Westminster constituency election. It did not switch to the Tories, as we are told that it did. Also on the surface we can see from the statistics presented thus far that the Tories were seemingly brought, by the two Dover ward results, very close to their general election total. So, what this seems to be telling us is that Thanet South was lost by UKIP to the Tories because of an irresistible showing in the Dover wards. Casually, we could say that this makes sense – the Dover constituencies are rural, and a golf course takes up a great deal of space in the Sandwich one.
However, there is a problem with all that because not everyone who wanted to vote UKIP as much as they could in the council elections – or for Labour for that matter – could do so. The Dover wards in the council elections cannot give an accurate representation – the full data about these wards is just not available to us.
But there is a tool on the internet that is quite useful in going some way to building a picture – the Electoral Calculus website. For the wards of Little Stour and Ashstone, and Sandwich in the Thanet South constituency election, Electoral Calculus estimated UKIP scored 870 and 963 respectively [this had to be extracted from an umbrella “others” score based on the actual percentages won in the constituency election].
As for the Tory performance in the Dover wards, Electoral Calculus estimated it to be strong, with 1997 and 1770 votes. If we just added these scores to the basic Thanet vote-per-voter ward numbers (Result B), this is what we would get:
Result F (out of 48469 total votes – [Electoral Calculus reckons a smaller number of total votes cast for the Dover wards, and the author hasn’t worked out why]):
UKIP 16636 votes; 34.3%; Tories 17052 votes; 35.2%; Labour 12147; 25.1%
This begins to show us, that on the other hand, UKIP were just too strong in Thanet proper to be overcome the way they did by the Tories in Dover. Indeed, a Tory win garnered out of strong Dover support doesn’t necessarily stand up to closer scrutiny, and the first thing we can do to show this is to use the result of the Dover Westminster constituency to extrapolate the full extent of UKIP support in the Thanet South Dover wards. The Dover constituency election outcome looked like this: Tory 43.3%; Labour 30.7%; UKIP 20.3%; Lib Dem 3.1%.
When we use this as a template for the vote-per-voter numbers from Sandwich and Little Stour, we get these results:
Result G (out of 8474 total votes):
Tory 3669 votes; Labour 2601 votes; UKIP 1720 votes; Lib Dems 263 votes
Adding this to the Thanet ward results we get:
Result H (out of 49709 total votes):
UKIP 16523 votes; 33.2%; Tories 16956 votes; 34.1%; Labour 13817 votes; 27.8%; Lib Dems 263 votes; 0.5%.
Again, the story being told is that the Tory strength in Dover just isn’t enough to overpower the UKIP vote in the Thanet-proper part of the Thanet South constituency.
The next thing we can do is extrapolate what might have happened for a full deck of UKIP candidates in the Sandwich and Little Stour elections. At the same time, we need to keep a track of the Labour and Lib Dem performances to make sure that we redistribute votes properly – and that the total percentages still add up to 100! [Please note, the Green Party and Others made up 1.4% of the entire vote, we’re going to say Green support is at the level of 0.7%; this is a figure extrapolated as an average from all the Dover wards. In fact, for simplicity’s sake, we are going to treat this presence as so negligible that we can get away with ignoring it in our calculations]. We need to begin with Sandwich where UKIP lacked a third candidate against the Tories’ full house. Labour only put up one candidate, and the Lib Dems also had 3. What we need to do is look at the other results amongst the Dover and Thanet council elections statistics for wards where UKIP and Labour put up a full set of candidates in 3-seat wards. For UKIP, we can find a number that we could reasonably expect to fill the 3rd column by looking for the worst performance in all the qualifying seats in terms of the proportion of the 3rd vote to the 2nd– this would be to assume less than average support.
In Labour’s case, we need to fill two columns, so we will use the worst proportion between 2nd and 1st votes and then the same again between the 3rd and 2nd; this gives us the following results:
UKIP: 1st Candidate: 936 (real votes); 2nd Candidate: 860 (real votes); New 3rd Candidate: 725 (additional votes); total: 2521 votes
Labour: 1st Candidate: 975 (real votes); New 2nd Candidate: 842 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 722 (additional votes); total: 2539 votes
These are the votes that we think UKIP and Labour would have scored if they had had the full number of candidates standing.
Because Labour and UKIP suddenly have votes where they didn’t before, we have to make space out of the existing Lib Dem and Tory ones. We are awarding UKIP 725 more votes, and Labour 1564 – a grand total of 2289. The Tories portion of this is 74.7%, while the Lib Dems is 25.3% (we get this by working out the ratio of the Tory vote to the Lib Dem vote). So we must subtract 1711 votes from the Tories, and 578 votes from the Lib Dems.
This gives us these figures for all votes cast:
Result I (out of 10114 total votes):
UKIP 2521 votes; 24.9%; Tory 3777 votes; 37.3%; Labour 2539 votes; 25.1%; Lib Dems 1277 votes; 12.6%.
When we work these figures to get a vote-per-voter number we get the following:
Result J (out of 4291 total votes):
UKIP 1070 votes; 24.9%; Tory 1602 votes; 37.3%; Labour 1077 votes; 25.1%; Lib Dems 542 votes; 12.6%.
At this stage, we should examine how Electoral Calculus estimated the scores of the Sandwich ward in the Thanet South constituency:
Result K (out of 3671 total votes - [N.B. Electoral Calculus reckoned a turnout of 3671 in this ward for the general election – the author does not know why; 4291 is the number of ballots issued for the council election]).
UKIP 963 votes; 26.2%; Tories 1770 votes; 48.2%; Labour 560 votes; 14.9%; Lib Dems 266 votes; 7.2%.
The important thing to focus on is the way the UKIP vote stays roughly the same. And our revised figure for the Tory vote-per-voter (see Result J) is much closer to the Electoral Calculus one than it was when unmodified. In that vanilla form, the Tories had 2328 votes, or 63.4%. [It should be pointed out at this stage that Electoral Calculus overstated the Tory support 75% of the time, and in one case by 10 percentage points, and understated the UKIP support 62.5% of the time, and in one case by nearly 18 percentage points].
Now we repeat the entire process for Little Stour and Ashstone:
Once again, the Tories and the Lib Dems had 3 candidates apiece. Labour had one, and UKIP hand none. UKIP’s first candidate’s score was assumed to have the same percentage of the vote that their first candidate had had in the Sandwich election. This was thought to be a fair number. In the Dover wards, the average percentage for UKIP’s 1st candidate (against total votes cast) was 17%. The Stour first candidate had 9%. The rest of the numbers were found in the same way already described so that the new Labour and UKIP scores would look like this:
UKIP: New 1st Candidate: 943 (additional votes); New 2nd Candidate: 872 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 734 (additional votes); total: 2549
Labour: 1st Candidate: 943 (real votes); New 2nd Candidate: 815 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 698 (additional votes); total: 2456
The votes are swapped across as follows:
UKIP +2549; Labour +1513; Tory -3164; Lib Dems -898 – so that the new totals are:
Result L (out of 10186 total votes):
UKIP 2549 votes; 25%; Tory 4035 votes; 39.6%; Labour 2456 votes; 24.1%; Lib Dems 1146 votes; 11.2%.
When we work these figures to get a vote-per-voter number we get the following:
Result M (out of 4183 total votes):
UKIP 1047 votes; 25%; Tory 1657 votes; 39.6%; Labour 1009 votes; 24.1%; Lib Dems 470 votes; 11.3%.
Now compare with the Electoral Calculus estimates:
Result N (out of 3563 votes):
UKIP 870 votes; 24.4%; Tories 1997 votes; 56.1%; Labour 372 votes; 10.4%; Lib Dems 223 votes; 6.3%.
When the one vote-per-voter figures are understood in all the wards that make up the Thanet South constituency, these are the results:
Result O (out of 49709 votes):
UKIP 16920 votes; 34%; Tories 16545 votes; 33.3%; Labour 13301 votes; 26.7%; Lib Dems 1012 votes; 2%. Other 4%.
Finally, let’s have another look at the general election results:
UKIP: 16026 votes; 32.4%; Tories: 18838 votes; 38.1%; Labour: 11740 votes; 23.8%; Lib Dem 831; 1.9%. Other 3.8%.
Off the bat, this suggests that the Tories gained votes mostly from Labour across from the council elections to the constituency election. This is totally contrary to what we have been told about voter behaviour, and this is not surprising. We aren’t supposed to know that the Labour and the Tory vote is interchangeable to keep UKIP out of office. So the Tory win in Thanet South might have been organic… or the figures might help us to know how the Thanet South election was rigged (more on this in the next article), for it is quite possible that our final reckoning of the Labour vote (see Result O) is over stated. Indeed, Electoral Calculus’ estimates were massively underweight for Labour in the Dover wards, and this is where we have somewhat boosted them. If we go back and look at Result D, Labour scored 12017, or 24.2% in all the council wards that comprise the Thanet South constituency – this was without any transfer from the Tory and Lib Dem vote, and is more in line with the constituency election result. Feeding the excess vote back into the Tories’ share, the figures would look like this:
Result P (out of 49709 votes):
UKIP 16920 votes; 34%; Tories 17524 votes; 35.3%; Labour 12017 votes; 24.2%; Lib Dems 1317 votes; 2.6%. Other 3.9%.
The Tories are still shy of 1000 votes compared to the constituency election, and it suggests that the Tory victory could only have been as large as it was with a transfer of support from UKIP – which evidently did not switch very much between the council and the general election. It’s hard to imagine where the Tories’ margin of victory came from.
If everything had gone as normal on election night in Thanet South, we could shrug our shoulders and say that after all, people who had voted UKIP in the council elections decided not to vote to put the leader of UKIP in the House of Commons, but to vote Tory instead. But as there were shenanigans, and as it is simply not believable that UKIP voters would not vote for Farage, and because the figures testify that the Tories should not have won so incredibly big, if at all, if the UKIP vote had held up (which it looked like it did), then we have to start contemplating the reality of the vote having been rigged. How it could have been achieved is for the next article.
When the BBC’s exit poll was announced on the night of 7th May, certain politicians and political commentators expressed incredulity. Previously, the opinion polls had had Labour and the Tories neck and neck – now it looked as if the Tories would win by quite the margin. The exit poll was a surprise to the author, too, who never believes opinion polls and who predicted enough UKIP seats to force some drastic repositioning amongst the LibLabCon to do whatever needed to be done to continue its agenda. The explanation for the result, we were told, was a reaction to the threat of a SNP coalition with Labour. We were led to believe that the corporate-media and the Conservatives, with their negative campaigning, had apparently scared Tory voters back into the fold – and so presumably away from UKIP. However, after some time for consideration has passed, this story begins to look like cover for something else that lies actually partly just beyond the scope of this article (an explanation to follow). Although the size of the promised SNP result did in fact materialise, their performance, regardless of its scale, would never make any difference to what a LibLabCon Westminster Government has planned for Scotland – i.e. for it to be a direct EU province. So, the SNP threat story had always been a decoy – and now we can see what for. Despite what we are told by the Westminster Bubble, General Election Day 2015 was a resounding success for UKIP and the anti-EU forces in the country. However, the unexpected Tory win is not only excused by the SNP decoy, but made to look spectacular because of how the bogey-man of Labour+SNP in office has been slain in the process, and this turns our attention away from the really significant development. Post-election, we were sold a story of how “leftism” – a redundant term of divide and conquer – is temporarily defeated and the “right” has won, but the real divide in politics remains, and the side that UKIP is on has been made stronger. Even though the British electorate has apparently given a pro-EU Tory Government carte-blanche to rubber stamp EU legislation and continue to lead them ever more into national oblivion, Britons who are looking to overthrow the unlawful rule of the vassal government that clings on in Westminster are better placed than ever before to do it. This is what is being disguised under the froth of all the Establishment baloney.
Getting now into the facts and figures, if we compare the votes for each party in the 2010 and 2015 elections against the respective turnouts, we find some very interesting results. In 2010, 10.7 million people voted Tory in a national turnout of 29.7 million. If the same proportion had voted for the Tories in 2015, where the turnout was 30.7 million, then the size of that constituency would have been 11,080,028. This number is only 250 thousand less than the actual 2015 result. In real terms, the Tory vote only grew by 2% of the 2010 result. As for UKIP, in 2010, a mere 919,546 (the author amongst them) expressed their support with a vote. If the same proportion had voted UKIP in 2015, the result would have seen a measly 950,501 votes. In fact, this time UKIP received 2.9 million votes more than that. In real terms, UKIP’s vote grew by 308%. The exact same development can be seen in the vote-share-change figures where the Tories only managed a 0.8% increase from 2010 – UKIP saw a 9.5% increase. The great myth that has already been peddled and sold is not true. There was no great Tory victory in the 2015 election – the party still has roughly the same level of support that could only muster a coalition in 2010. It is UKIP that has made the most tremendous impact, and has changed the political landscape, and that is no doubt why the corporate-media is going after it so furiously: the Establishment is perhaps frightened witless, which is further suggested by the rapidity with which the Tories are moving ahead with some very suspect policies that, after only a little investigation, will reveal themselves to be in accordance with and conducive for EU rule.
As much mileage as the idea of the Labour+SNP bogey-man has had, we need to view it in the context of this massive growth in UKIP. In doing this we can see that in fact, if it did have any effect at all, then it only mitigated UKIP’s growth rather than hand the Tories a stunning victory. Indeed, it could be argued that the actual scale of the SNP-threat effect was negligible – after all, the Labour vote grew slightly more than the Tories’ did, and it looks on the face of it that the collapsed Lib Dem vote propped the Tories up; (the author always predicted a merging of the support of those two parties). In truth, or as it appears to the author at least, the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition did not generate a major Tory burst.
Of course, if we are puzzled about a few things regarding this election just gone, we cannot be mystified about how the Great Tory Victory narrative came to be established. Before the election the ever-so-compliant corporate-media – none less strident than the Tories’ flagship propaganda mouthpiece, the Daily Mail – was crucial in being seen to frighten its readership – usually Middle England Tories. The way it did this was by writing the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition large into the imaginations of people. Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party would form a partnership, and the SNP would extract all sorts of concessions out of the senior member in the relationship – to the detriment of the English. The author didn’t follow much of this fear mongering, but gathers the preceding sentence an adequate representation of what was the spirit of the threat being made.
However, against the theoretical power to influence that the corporate-media has evidently had, and to some degree still wields, the author sets the increasing awareness in the public of the phenomenon known as a “psychological operation”. The author is coming to think that perhaps the British electorate is growing out of its historical naivety whereby it is increasingly resistant to the sort of manipulation by the “authoritative voice” that has been able to work so well in the past. For surely, pre-election, from hard and expanding experience, people could see that a Tory party that has a majority – just as a Labour one would – could rubber stamp EU legislation with impunity. On the other hand, a coalition government, opposed by a kernel of UKIP MPs with which Labour and Tory rebels might find some common cause, had the potential to be a spanner in the works – in the context of current British politics where the LibLabCon are obviously firmly set upon an agenda separate to that of the people it is supposed to represent, Government is best when it finds it hard to legislate against them.
The more one considers the matter, the more one comes to the conclusion that the reason for the promotion of the SNP threat was more complex than at first appears, and it could have something to do with a grander plan that encompasses the election, of which the current mass frenzy in corporate-media regarding the so-called civil war in UKIP is a tail-end feature. There will be more on this in the very next FBEL article – one investigating the possibility of electoral fraud to deliver key seats to the Tories [have patience, though, this will take a good deal of research]. In short, and for the time-being, the theory would be that the promotion of the SNP threat was to create a rationale so that the eventual out-of-the-blue Tory victory would not be such a surprise, and would be easier for people to comprehend. What we could have very well seen is a great theft – and it would indicate a departure from the usual method of control – illusion – that our ruling class, now driven to desperation, would normally use to trick us into giving our support and consent.
The trouble is, whether or not UKIP were robbed of a number of MPs is difficult to prove; what we can say for sure, however, is that the party was robbed of recognition of its success. As well as the nearly 4 million votes garnered in the General Election, UKIP gained 176 council seats, and won control of its first district council in Thanet. And in actual fact, a big UKIP presence in the councils is arguably going to prove to be more important than seats at Westminster because of the way it is intended for the EU to rule the territories currently known as the United Kingdom. Only days into their incumbency, the Tories have already announced plans to create proto city states of the major English metropolitan areas. The plan is a development of Labour’s design to regionalise England with parliaments – presumably, as per the surreptitious way British politicians have delivered the blueprint for EU control in the UK, a rehash and friendlier face was needed after the original scheme faced overwhelming opposition in the electorate. The EU has just been mentioned, and of course, the real purpose of regionalisation is so that the EU can rule the UK directly at local level – even to a degree where councils become directly answerable to the EU. The National Government will increasingly become a vestigial organ that, as it shrinks by barely noticeable degrees over time, will serve the main purpose of fooling Britons into thinking that theirs is an independent country.
Thus, it is very important that UKIP establish as soon as possible a good number of councils and seats on them so as to become a power through which EU rule is most effectively resisted. The good news is that the election results clearly show that UKIP is on the ascendency, and with a stunningly steep trajectory. This is perhaps most dramatically illustrated in a graphic produced by the Independent newspaper which shows which party made the biggest gains in votes in each Westminster constituency (see above). England and Wales are blanketed in UKIP purple. This is great news ahead of any referendum on EU membership, which the Tory Government, with its helping agents in the wider British Government, will look to win for the “In” side – not perhaps by bamboozling the electorate, because it may have found at this election just gone that it cannot do that as well as it may have been able to in the past – but by knobbling the one force in British politics that will prove most effective at mobilizing the electorate to vote “Out”; and this would explain the current frenzied attack on UKIP by the corporate-media, which is clearly another co-ordinated psychological -operation – like others written about on this site – to create the impression of UKIP disintegration or lack of support and/or unity. Britons who want to be free of the EU vassal at Westminster must be encouraged by all the flak being taken by UKIP at the moment; the party is clearly flying over the target it needs to attack.