This site is a back-up for the main site at frombehindenemylines.org.uk
As the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, attempts to get elected to represent the people of Stoke Central, the Establishment has once again shown how it can move various elements of its control structure in a coordinated operation to try to steal the success that he and the party deserve. While the LibLabCon Establishment banks on Tory dominance to steer Britain through “Fake Brexit” (see here for an explanation), the Labour Party is extremely vulnerable. And while Liverpool voted to remain in the EU, and so might well be a hot bed of Labourite obstinacy in a way that is pertinent to this story – as the reader shall see – Stoke has been called the Brexit capital of the country. The Stoke by-election threatens to prove predictions that, as Britons realise that they must hold Westminster’s feet to the fire to ensure an end to EU membership, places like Stoke that were once Labour strongholds will become tough for the party to retain in elections. And one thing is for sure, it does look like Labour and Establishment strategists know that UKIP cannot be denied in Stoke Central through ideas; this is evident by the way that the UKIP candidate has been subjected to an Alinsky-prescribed process of marginalisation, mud-slinging and ridicule. As we examine a small portion of this odious campaign, the author shouldn’t need to remind the reader that decent people cannot allow such methodology to succeed so that Establishment placemen are elevated to positions of office to maintain the vested interests of a very few.
First of all there was the dangerous piece of fake news non-journalism executed by Channel 4s Michael Crick and other corporate-media operatives. Crick and company basically gave the go-ahead for any mentally ill individual (or political activist) – and it turns out that there were two – to try and intimidate Paul Nuttall at his home in Stoke. Crick published images of the house on social media – the actual address also made it online (an example) – and at the same time accused Nuttall of fraud in relation to his attempt to become an MP in Stoke. It was tantamount to the following invitation: here’s the bad guy, go and exact justice.
There should not have been any fuss. Relying on the ignorance of corporate-media victims, Crick and many others gave the impression that, as Nuttall had not been living at the house while submitting the address on the by-election candidature application form as his residency, then he had done something illegal. The author has checked. The form for candidature asks for a home address. It doesn’t ask where the candidate is living. For many people, a home address is not the same as the place they are living. A whole sub-class of live-in landlords (Owner Occupiers) have home addresses at shared accommodation that they don’t actually reside in themselves; they live elsewhere. At the time UKIP made it clear that the party had acquired the property pre-application as a place for Nuttall to move to so that he could live in Stoke. If Nuttall’s name was on the paperwork, then it was an address associated with him; hence he was entitled to call it his home address. However, this issue was placed in the hands of the police, and it’s an old trick. It means that the corporate-media can refer to “an ongoing investigation” at every opportunity to give the impression that Nuttall is a wrong-doer.
That being said, the scheme has failed to disturb UKIP’s ascendency in Stoke, and so the Establishment has accelerated an issue with regards to Nuttall’s attendance at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground in 1989 to see Liverpool Football Club in a FA Cup semi final. Of course, this was the occasion when 96 people were crushed to death in the crowd: the Hillsborough disaster.
We’re going to begin this component with some literary analysis. The following is from a Guardian article entitled “Ukip leader Paul Nuttall denies lying about being at Hillsborough disaster”.
Look at the first line, echoing almost exactly the title:
Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has denied that he has lied about being a Hillsborough survivor
Lie is a strong word: a deliberately untrue statement usually made for malicious purposes. So far, the Guardian article makes it look like there is a piece of evidence by which Nuttall has been discovered and has had to react to. But look at the opening sentence in its entirety:
Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has denied that he has lied about being a Hillsborough survivor after a number of people questioned his claim to have been present on the day of the disaster.
Let’s examine this. It says that Nuttall’s denial came after people questioned his claim. The Guardian article then presents this questioning in more detail, and while we examine it, the reader should notice a crucial thing: there is not one outright accusation in the whole litany. And so it appears that Nuttall couldn’t have denied lying, because no one has accused him of it. Instead, they have only themselves made insinuations, or they have contributed to the one that the Guardian is making overall in the article. One doesn’t have to defend oneself from insinuation; insinuation is not to be taken seriously in law, and in fact is to be treated with suspicion. But a cunningly crafted piece of fake news can make insinuation look respectable.
Nuttall was 12 at the time of the disaster, and was a pupil at Savio high school in Bootle, Liverpool. One of his former teachers, a Roman Catholic priest, has told the Guardian that the school believed it had been aware of the identities of every boy who had been at Hillsborough in order to help them through a difficult period, and that Nuttall was not among them.
Notice that there is no name. This means that the source could be invented; additionally, if a source is to give evidence understanding he is to remain nameless, what’s to prevent him from providing false witness? And if Nuttall wasn’t being counselled by Roman Catholic priests, then so what? Yes, maybe it is unusual in the UK that someone doesn’t want to have the State or the Church in all of their business, but believe it or not, there are people who feel that way.
A fellow pupil at the school who says he has been a friend of Nuttall for decades said the Ukip leader had never mentioned being there. “I have been very good friends with Paul for over 25 years,” he said, adding that during that time they had “never spoken” about Hillsborough.
Again no name. The author suggests that if this friend was such a good friend, then he wouldn’t have had provided the Guardian with the material to do a hit piece.
Unsurprisingly, the writer of the Guardian article admits that all of this yet amounts to nothing – which could be an act of prudence with a mind to legalities, we shouldn’t wonder, for there really is not a jot of evidence, and no one who could have any knowledge of the matter has accused Paul Nuttall of lying:
While the teacher and friend expressed surprise that Nuttall has said he was at Hillsborough, their comments do not prove that he was not present.
The Guardian article also mentions the MP for Bootle of 25 years, Joe Benton. We are supposed to believe that if Nuttall didn’t like to talk about Hillsborough with his long time friend and Catholic Priests, then he should have confided about it with his political adversary during two general election campaigns.
Benton… said that to the best of his knowledge Nuttall had not mentioned Hillsborough when he stood against him as Ukip’s candidate in the 2005 and 2010 general elections.
Nuttall had not mentioned being present at Hillsborough during any public meeting they had both attended, nor in his campaign literature, Benton said, despite the strength of feeling within the constituency about the police negligence that led to the deaths and the subsequent official cover-up that led to Liverpool fans being blamed for the disaster.
Once again, however hard the reader looks for it, he or she will not see an accusation that Nuttall was not at Hillsborough, and therefore must be lying about it. The reader might notice that, unlike the other two non-accusations we saw, this one is implying that there was a moral imperative for Nuttall to have mentioned Hillsborough if he had indeed been present. Here we are moving into slightly different territory. This is actual insinuation that Nuttall wasn’t at Hillsborough. It says that strength of feeling was such that Nuttall should have mentioned his presence at Hillsborough if he was really there. Please notice, Nuttall apparently didn’t tell Benton that he wasn’t at Hillsborough either, so one wonders if any occasion actually arose for the subject to be broached as Benton seems to think it did. In that case, is Benton lying? Can we trust him to tell the truth even if Nuttall did mention something? What we do know for sure is that here is a Labour politician proactively contributing to the smear. And UKIP were pretty sure that Labour were engaged in dirty tricks when they issued a statement about the matter; this is how the Guardian piece here being studied presents it:
Any claim that… [Nuttall] was not at Hillsborough was “totally false and highly defamatory”, the statement said, adding: “Paul was indeed at Hillsborough. He attended the match with his father and other family members. For political opponents to suggest otherwise and for left-wing media organisations to promote such claims constitutes a new low for the Labour party and its associates.”
Consider this statement: any claim is highly defamatory. A quick look at the defamation law (here) confirms what the author instinctively thought was true: “A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth”. So the burden of proof is with the defendant (that is, the party being sued for the defamation). This is probably why no one will come out and make a clear allegation – and on Twitter the author has asked the broadcaster/author/whatever Paul Mason to clarify what he meant when he published a statement claiming that Nuttall was a “lying fantasist”. At the time of writing there has been no reply.
Notice that UKIP also states that political opponents are merely engaged in making suggestions – as Benton clearly did. In fact it should be quite clear to a rational person that Hillsborough is being used as a political football. And so it is a shame to see that certain people connected to organisations representing or supporting the victims’ families are also allowing themselves to become involved in this; please consider the following, also from the same Guardian piece:
Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Families Support Group, said she was surprised that Nuttall had never offered to assist with their decades-long campaign to overturn the cover-up that led to Liverpool football fans being blamed for the 96 deaths.
“I haven’t heard anything about him being at the match,” she said. “Has he given a statement to the police, who have said they want to hear from everyone who was there? He can’t say he hasn’t heard that the police want to take statements from everyone who was in the Leppings Lane, as it’s been all over local and national media.”
This is at yet another level – and it starts to get scary. Mrs Aspinall is saying that Nuttall should have acted, not just made a statement, in order to prove himself. This is in fact the beginning of authoritarianism (and it’s ironic that she chooses the example of failing to report to police). One thinks of totalitarian dictatorships where if one does not proactively display support for the system, then one is a deviant, and worthy of suspicion – and worse than that, a criminal to be disposed of as the State sees fit. Please recall the histrionics displayed by the North Korean people when Kim Jong Il died – all out of fear of being accused of not grieving enough for the departed Dear Leader. The author begins to wonder if there is a sense of political ownership of Hillsborough so that it has become an issue of sacrilege that the “enemy” – Nuttall was a Tory in his first political incarnation – could have suffered too. The abovementioned Paul Mason did make it clear on Twitter that there are political tribal issues at stake:
UKIP funder Aaron Banks hates the working class so much he says Hillsboro “just a disaster” – but it was part of Thatcher’s war on us
And so in that case, the author suggests that what we are looking at is a politically motivated witch hunt that uses Hillsborough to generate moral panic. To explain: the moral orthodoxy in this case is related to the elevation of Hillsborough victims into martyrs through efforts by police to scapegoat fans. Nuttall, by apparently telling a lie connected to it, is cheapening that moral standard. Thus there must be fury, and alarm – and the context in which to hunt and eradicate the morally abnormal culprit. An historical witch hunt had the appearance of being about reaction to spiritual deviance on the surface, but underneath it was an abuse of power; an opportunity to get rid of a threat to the power without anyone questioning the illegitimacy of the act – to assassinate without comeback. This is what has been happening to Nuttall. The reader will get to read more from people connected with Hillsborough groups shortly, and more of an opportunity to observe the role being played by these individuals, and perhaps to decide if they too are politically motivated. One hopes that they are unwitting pawns, and as such it might be worthwhile for them to contemplate that the peril of being exploited – especially to try and shore up a dying political party and system – is losing sympathy for their cause. (It occurs to the author that it might not have been possible to exploit Hillsborough in this way if the fault for the tragedy, as appears to be the case in actual official inquest, hadn’t been entirely laid at the door of the State through its particular actors and officials. There will be further investigation into this at a later time).
The next development in this Nuttall-at-Hillsborough saga has to do with content of his website. Responsibility for this has since been claimed by an assistant – who did the decent thing and offered to resign – and Nuttall has admitted to its being inaccurate, and also his error in not checking his website himself. Indeed, Nuttall did not try to pretend certain information was true on first being confronted with it. That the man did such a thing in the context of the witch hunt against him shows character that makes the notion of his being dishonest rather implausable. And on the contrary, depsite what is a cut and dry matter, it is the corporate-media that continues to be dishonest.
The following are two extracts from a MailOnline article (here). The first appears in the body of the article, and the second is in a caption of an image:
1- Paul Nuttall was “forced to make a humiliating confession that a blog post on his website claiming he lost ‘close personal friends’ at the stadium tragedy was incorrect.”
2 – Earlier this week Paul Nuttall was forced into making a humiliating confession that he did not lost (sic) ‘close personal friends’ in the 1989 stadium tragedy – despite claiming he did in a blog post on his website
Because Paul Nuttall has admitted ultimate responsibility for the content of his website, the corporate-media can probably get away with this (by which is meant the promotion of the notion that the claim was personally made by Nuttall). It isn’t in the spirit of the truth, but the corporate-media isn’t interested in that. The despicable aspect of the maintenance of this evolved deception is that it facilitates reaction that perpetuates the moral panic referred to above (and so the witch hunt can continue). Consider the following from a Guardian article entitled “Hillsborough families dismayed by Paul Nuttall’s ‘insulting’ admission”. Each extract is followed by the author’s own brief comments:
Margaret Aspinall, the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, whose 18-year-old son, James, died in the disaster, described the admission as “appalling”.
“There’s a lot of people who survived that day who did lose personal friends. It’s devastating for them because they’re still suffering and for the guy now to backtrack is appalling,” she said.
We’ve heard from Mrs Aspinall before. This appears to be an attack on Paul Nuttall citing incorrect information as a basis for it.
Sue Roberts, secretary of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, whose brother Graham died at the match, said she had found Nuttall’s admission hard to understand.
“Anybody who was at Hillsborough, that was bad enough anyway,” she said. “To have actually lost close personal friends or, worse still, family members – it’s the thing that’s defined our lives for the last 28 years.
“People are still tormented by their loss. To actually try and say that you’ve lost close personal friends and then to backtrack and say I didn’t, I can’t understand how anybody could be that cruel and callous.
“This latest hurtful statement that he didn’t lose close personal friends – people have now got to come forward.”
Look at what appears to happening in this extract. Again, there is an attack on Paul Nuttall based on something that isn’t true. This is executed in very emotive language, and it is vulnerable to accusations that it is for the purpose of inspiring, by guilt, someone to perform the act that Sue Roberts appears to be desirous of – that is, someone should inform on Paul Nuttall. Again, connotations of a Stasi-society.
Steve Kelly, a member of the Hillsborough Justice campaign whose brother Michael died in the Leppings Lane end, urged the under-pressure Ukip leader to provide further evidence if he was at Hillsborough that day.
“He’s claimed that he can back all this up. Well, if that’s the case, that’s all he’s got to do to clear his name,” he said.
“Clear his name” - as if Paul Nuttall has actually committed a crime.
It would be fitting to end this article with Paul Nuttall’s own words as delivered at the recent UKIP spring conference.
This is two-fold, actually. Firstly, I take the blame for the fact that I failed to check what was up on my website in my name, that was my fault and I apologise.
But I will not apologise for what is a coordinated, cruel and almost evil smear campaign that has been directed at me.
It is based on lies from sources who have not been named. It has been a tough week for me but I will not allow them to break me and I will not allow them to break Ukip.
As far too many people get excited about the prospect of Theresa May & Co. negotiating with the EU to achieve Fake Brexit (i.e. continued compliance and subjection under Globalism with a priority on ensuring the survival of the EU), passing completely under the radar is a sinister Government plan to inculcate normalcy bias about the outcome; in other words to manage perception against expectation to mitigate the impact of disappointment and to stifle opposition. It’s all part of The Modern Industrial Strategy that has been touted by Theresa May as a means “to ensure every nation and area of the United Kingdom can make the most of the opportunities ahead”, but it looks like 1) a reinvigoration of David Cameron’s Big Society (the author’s criticism of which is to be read here), tweaked with Corporate intervention in communities for isolating people from information that threatens Globalism, 2) a doubling down on an insistence of the authoritative voice of the Establishment in media and in education, and 3) a strategy to hasten the onset of robotics and A.I. in the workplace as a development of the economic attack on Britons through displacement (with immigrants currently being deployed in that capacity). If the reader is sceptical, please see the seemingly leaked Government plans to wage a £60 million Public Relations war on “Breitbart and stuff like that, the conspiratorial media”, and the increasing efforts to make the public aware of the certainty of job-losses through “human superfluity” – as in the article here:
Please also notice that first article in the same series as this one – which can be found here – has since been vindicated by the revelation of the intention of Government ministers to pass a statutory instrument (that doesn’t require a vote on it), the Unified Patent Court Agreement, into law which will mean that the “standards for products and inventions are set in Europe not Britain” (from here).
As in the previous article, this one will analyse recent speeches made by Theresa May about Britain “leaving” the EU. These speeches show that May has correctly identified the negative impact of Globalism as being the cause of the EU Referendum result. The reader might have thought that it was EU membership that people didn’t like, and on the surface, that would be true. But the EU is the starting node of a centralised system of worldwide corporate-Government known as Globalism, which has the objective of destroying the middle class, national unity and identity in regions of the globe that before Political Correctness used to be known as the First World – and thus ridding itself of effective political opposition. As was pointed out in the first article, Theresa May used the word “globalisation” when she means “Globalism”. (Again, all the extracts that follow are from Theresa May’s speeches unless otherwise stated.)
Because talk of greater globalisation can make people fearful. For many, it means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut. It means having to sit back as they watch their communities change around them.
And in their minds, it means watching as those who prosper seem to play by a different set of rules, while for many life remains a struggle as they get by, but don’t necessarily get on.
Theresa May says that she will make Globalism work for everyone. If we keep reading May’s speech, though, we begin to reconcile what is being proposed with what is already known: Globalism isn’t meant to work for everyone; it is wholly and entirely about preying on the mass of humanity.
And these tensions and differences are increasingly exposed and exploited through the expansion of new technologies and the growth of social media.
Here we are then, this is not about changing Globalism, but changing perception of it. Just look at the dishonesty of Theresa May. Exposing the injustices of Globalism is characterised by her as exploiting tensions. The former cannot be done without angering the people who suffer. The British Establishment has Apollo syndrome. It regrets that Daphne should turn into a tree to avoid being raped, and it certainly doesn’t expect her to assert her humanity and fight back.
But let’s just pretend that Theresa May is genuine, and wants to change the truth of the matter rather than perception of the truth. Let’s look at what can be treated as a defining statement about what is planned:
Because if you are someone who is just managing, just getting by, you don’t need a Government that will get out of the way. You need an active Government that will step up and champion the things that matter to you.
This is horrifying stuff. Government should certainly get out of way. Government should not be involved in any aspect of a free person’s life. It might be hard for a Briton to appreciate this idea, being coddled as they are from birth to grave – a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. Britain is a Marxist state, and it’s humorous to the Nth degree to see people campaigning against a socialist outcome which has already been implemented. The British Government has been “stepping up” for 60-plus years – governing for Globalist congruity. The decline in living standards and expectations will continue as it “steps up” anew.
But May continues…
I believe such a strategy – that addresses the long-standing and structural weaknesses in our economy – is essential if we are to promote the benefits of free markets and free trade as we wish.
A quick note; here she equates Globalism with free markets. The essence of Globalism is crony capitalism, where a person or a corporation, usually on its way to becoming an arm of Government itself, is favoured by legislation – that it has probably lobbied for. This is not the same as a free market, where everyone has a naturally equal chance of selling his wares. That aside, what are the weaknesses that are obstacles to promoting the “benefits” of Globalism?
As we continue to bring the deficit down, we will take a balanced approach by investing in our economic infrastructure – because it can transform the growth potential of our economy, and improve the quality of people’s lives across the whole country.
The national deficit is indeed decreasing – and you’ll probably see that your local council has sold off premises and property to make this happen. In other words, how much is being borrowed every year is decreasing because less is being borrowed to spend on the welfare state (the extent to which Government is involved in one’s life). This frees up borrowing to spend on “infrastructure”. Now, the naïve may think that May wants to attempt to generate tax revenue so that it can outstrip that which is borrowed (creating a surplus instead of a deficit), and debt can be paid down. But this would be very naïve. It follows that if Government can’t exert control through welfare, then it must do so through anything that replaces it. There will still be welfare, but its quality and quantity will degenerate even more. Welfare is crucial as a social control mechanism, and so can never be driven out like the social ill it really is. And the overall Globalist scheme continues; to swap real wealth out from the masses and replace it with something that has value only through corporate-Government fiat.
Our strategy is not about propping up failing industries or picking winners, but creating the conditions where winners can emerge and grow. It is about backing those winners all the way to encourage them to invest in the long-term future of Britain.
This is outright lies. Globalism is all about picking winners, and then propping them up when they are deemed too big to fail. Corporate giants don’t like new boys, and don’t like competition. The following are extracts taken from a Government press release entitled “PM unveils plans for a modern Industrial Strategy fit for Global Britain” which adds some depth to May’s outlining (it’s one of two press releases quoted in this article; the other is “Technical education at heart of modern Industrial Strategy”:
We must upgrade our standards of performance on digital, energy, transport, water and flood defence infrastructure, and better align central Government infrastructure investment with local growth priorities.
Delivering affordable energy and clean growth
We need to keep costs down for businesses, and secure the economic benefits of the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The proof that the Government is yanking everyone’s chain is in the claim that it will keep costs down as it continues to roll out renewable energy – which has long been established as being a scam; making people pay above the odds for energy is the whole point. But consider the statements under the umbrella heading “Upgrading Infrastructure”. The author might be missing something, but he would say that there isn’t much room for anything new in terms of physical infrastructure. A handful of companies already own the established transport, energy, water, and communications networks, and people just can’t go out and dig new tracts of network, no matter how entrepreneurial they are. Even new digital communications companies usually must deal with the previously State owned BT for access to physical cables. So, for the Government to invest in infrastructure, it must invest in corporations and companies that are already extant and massive. Not only that, if these organisations are not monopolising the infrastructure in certain regions, then they operate cartels with other operators. As a result, people in the UK pay far too much for their amenities, and for their communications; the infrastructure fails through lack of real competition and accountability. Who is really going to benefit when the Government rewards this with new shovels of tax payers’ money?
We will go further to reform our schools to ensure every child has the knowledge and the skills they need to thrive in post-Brexit Britain.
In its press briefings, the Government talks about “ensuring everyone has the basic skills needed in a modern economy”. The obvious riposte is to say that the UK has had 40 years of post-Grammar education, and the Government is still talking about skills shortages. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of Grammar schools where people can generally get a good education. Officially, supposedly, the Government is opposed to grammar education on grounds of Equality and Diversity. As always, underneath the Leftist exterior beats the corporate-monopolist motivation: the UK Government doesn’t want everyone who can to get a good education, because then everyone who can, will start to compete.
The plan seems to be to have technical colleges as an alternative to universities – rather like polytechnics then, the reader might think? Well no. This statement makes the intent clear (emphasis added): “building a new system of technical education to benefit the half of young people who do not go to university”.
This is what Theresa May says of it (as quoted in abovementioned press briefings):
Our action will help ensure young people develop the skills they need to do the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future. That means boosting technical education and ensuring we extend the same opportunity and respect we give university graduates to those people who pursue technical routes.
So, the people who can’t make the grade to go to university (and this is definitely easier than it used to be) go into technical college. The comparison one would like to make is, as mentioned, the old polytechnics, but this wouldn’t be fair. These institutions were for a vocational/academic mixture, and most who attended them were quite capable of going to university. In the end, technical institutes, polytechnics and universities offered much the same sort of thing. The Government proposal seems to be that it wants to put the people who don’t go university through technical college. And so maybe if we have to compare Theresa May’s Technical Colleges with a classification of educational establishment from the recent past, then they would surely be more like municipal Art Colleges. Doesn’t it just stink of keeping people off the unemployment statistics in the absence of heavy industry and skilled apprenticeships? Doesn’t it smack of tax-payer subsidised play-school for overgrown children who, in a proper country, would be in serious employment?
On the other hand, given that the Government is currently in the process of closing down technical colleges for post-school students, perhaps we should consider the promise of universal training to be another big lie. Greater Manchester University Technical College in Oldham is the seventh “university technical college (UTC)” to announce closure at the end of the 2017 academic year. The article reporting this implies that the college is somehow at fault and being punished for bad performance. This isn’t exactly correct. The author happens to know that a number of colleges in his region are going to be consolidated together, meaning towns suddenly being devoid of further and higher education institutions, and meaning that students will have to travel large distances to do a course they want – meaning that ultimately people are not going to be able to train in the way they would prefer. It appears to be part of a review by Government, which is discussed in this article on the Unison website (here). One suspects that actually the Oldham closure is part of this review.
Another clue about the real intention of Government is the press release statement that there would be “£170 million new Government funding for prestigious Institutes of Technology”.
This isn’t a lot of money, and one wonders if it’s enough to build some infrastructure in order for private companies to take it over. Moreover, the statement implies that there aren’t going to be many of these schools. Far from being widely available, Theresa May’s Technical Colleges are probably going to be farms for corporations. Having had that realisation, it is hard not to see the data fit in to an Agenda 21 Plannedopolis-type scheme for the future. The administrative, systems-implementing and political class goes to university. A button-pushing class to work the machines goes to technical school.
Of course, Theresa May frames the inevitable doom of communities to be “operated” for the good of the One-Percenter – as if they were plantations – amongst all the loving, benevolent things that she says she’s going to make Globalists do.
It means businesses paying their fair share of tax, recognising their obligations and duties to their employees and supply chains, and trading in the right way; companies genuinely investing in – and becoming part of – the communities and nations in which they operate, and abiding by the responsibilities that implies; and all of us taking steps towards addressing executive pay and accountability to shareholders.
Some people will read about level playing fields and believe Theresa May to be reasonable, and even worth a vote in an election. The author focuses on the bit about corporations becoming part of the communities in which they operate. To be fair, lots of people now appreciate the plan, excused by Governments because of faux concerns about sustainability, to deliberately inflict poverty on as many people as possible in the name of control. The UK Government is now taking some pretty skittish horses to the abattoir, so everything has got to be doubly appealing and super-duper future-tastic. So, social engineering and psychological conditioning will now have a name that conveys the loving intent of the benevolent Government: the Shared Society
The mission I have laid out for the Government I lead – to make Britain a country that works for everyone – goes further. It is to build something that I have called the shared society – one that doesn’t just value our individual rights but focuses rather more on the responsibilities we have to one another. That respects the bonds that people share – the bonds of family, community, citizenship and strong institutions.
And that recognises the obligations we have as citizens – obligations that make our society work.
It is these bonds and obligations that make our society strong and answer our basic human need for definition and identity.
And I am absolutely clear that it is the job of Government to encourage and nurture the relationships, networks and institutions that provide that definition, and to correct the injustice and unfairness that divides us wherever it is found.
Too often today, the responsibilities we have to one another have been forgotten as the cult of individualism has taken hold, and globalisation and the democratisation of communications has encouraged people to look beyond their own communities and immediate networks in the name of joining a broader global community.
Focus on this: it is the job of Government to interfere in the things that give people definition and identity. And if your definition and identity is a problem for the Government, then it’s the Government’s job to correct it. Already we are being shown what this means by the abovementioned plot to psychologically assault people who read Breitbart. And getting right down to the brass tacks, dear reader, is that the British Government sees opposition to it, as it carries out its nefarious and criminal activity, as “cult of individualism”. A cult of individualism. It’s High Orwellianism. Cultic behaviour is all to do with conforming, as zealously as possible, with gang prohibition and culture. If anything is a cult, then it’s the society that the British Government is desirous of – unquestioning and controlled in thought and action. Look at the way the British Establishment accuses its enemies of racism to keep its cult followers through shame of being remotely connected with the other side. What May is really talking about here is objection to the way that people have moved away from centralised control of information – so moving away from being in a cult, in fact – to using, and relying on, free forms that come in from outside. One immediately thinks of the Libertarian Movement that has mobilised on the internet, and real alternative nationwide networks of people to achieve the Brexit referendum result and the election of Trump. As we know from her 5th October 2016 Tory conference speech, May doesn’t like Libertarianism.
Time to reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and to embrace a new centre ground in which Government steps up – and not back – to act on behalf of us all.
Forget left and right. Socialism and libertarianism are indeed opposites, but there isn’t any centre. That’s the big con. The “centre” is control of society for the State’s own purpose. The plan is, post-Brexit, to reassert centralised control through corporate-government “investment” in communities, and doubling down on engineering society so that Government can get on with the job of preying on the masses.
Note: since the composition of this article began, the UK Government has released a White Paper in relation to negotiations it thinks it must have with the EU about Britain’s departure from that organisation. The author has glanced at it, and finds that in terms of stating what the UK Government hopes to achieve in key areas covered below, it is not much different nor any more definite or helpful than the sources that provide the material for this article.
Apparently, some people still think that the selected (by the pro-EU Establishment) Prime Minister of the UK – and Remain-campaigner – Theresa May, plus her (on the majority) pro-EU Parliamentary Tory Party (which stood down so she could be selected) are going to deliver the wishes of the people of the UK as expressed in the referendum on EU membership. They think that May is going to deliver a truly independent UK free of the EU. The truth of the matter – at least as it appears to the author – is that, if they’re lucky, they might get formal extraction of membership from the EU, but the UK will not be fully independent. What they are going to see, although they might not understand it, is the swapping out of aspects of EU membership with replacements that have more or less the same function toward furthering an integrationist agenda. Independence will be illusory.
So, how is it that we can make such a prediction so confidently? Because the people who rule Britain – and make no mistake, these aren’t the same people who were taking part in a debate in the Commons this past week (which the reader would have been wise not to have wasted any time paying attention to) – are Globalists, and Britain, for their sustenance and benefit, must be secured into a system of Globalism. The EU was supposed to be a shackle for this purpose. Now, even the born-again Brexit Avenger, Theresa May, is very concerned that the EU should survive the forces that the Leave movement in the UK represents – and this is because the EU is supposed to be a shackle. The UK only voted to Leave the EU by a miracle (it wasn’t meant to, and one day someone will get around to writing about that). There is no way that the UK is being divorced from the restricting influence of the EU while the same people rule Britain.
But we don’t need to rely on general prior knowledge. If we look at two speeches given recently and closely together by Theresa May, we can see what is intended. The first speech was the one touted as being a major policy exposition regarding the triggering of Article 50 and beyond, and it was given at Lancaster House on 17th January, the second was delivered to the World Economic Forum at Davos on 19th January.
We’re going to look at excerpts from these speeches over two articles, and discuss what they reveal (all quotations are from Theresa May unless otherwise stated). In this article, it is pointed out that the objective of the UK Government is continuance of Globalist standardisation, and how this perhaps means that what we should expect from Brexit is merely EU membership in everything but name. In the next article, we look at a plan for the future that the British Government has strangely stitched on to the delivery of Brexit, and notice that it confirms the desire for continuity in the Globalist scheme.
Before that, though, a note on the use of the word “globalisation” by Theresa May in the said speeches. According to Theresa May, globalisation is something that is good for lots of people, and that people would appreciate this if only they were taught that it was good for them. So, let’s just look at a definition of the word:
Globalisation: the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.
The problem is, who is doing the globalising? Is it Mom & Pop who are opening branches in another country? Or is it the expansion of a system of corporate government – or in other words, enlargement by people who are already immensely rich who want to govern on a global scale in order to sustain their dominance – i.e. people who want to rule the world? If it’s the latter case – and it most surely is – then what you have is Globalism. May uses globalisation when she means Globalism.
Let’s begin with the British Government’s concern about the survival of the EU project:
And I know many fear that… [Brexit] might herald the beginning of a greater unravelling of the EU.
But let me be clear: I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interests of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain’s decision to leave.
The EU is a dictatorship. Its ruling executive branch is not elected. The great power in the EU is Germany; as such its politicians will have most influence on this rule-making body. Lesser countries cannot hope for rule in their particular best interests. The EU is expansionist; this is observable by comparing maps printed variously in the 20th century. EU expansion in to Ukraine involved a coup and the promotion of real Nazis into power, and a war on the people of the country’s culturally Russian provinces. The EU – having realised that American hard reinforcement can no longer be relied upon, and soft power is just not enough – wants to arm itself appropriately for its ambitions; Angela Merkel has said as much. The survival of the EU is not at all in the best interests of an independent Britain – and there are many reasons why, but here’s an important one: Britain is going to be attached to the EU in terms of military alliances and all that that entails:
At a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies, Britain’s unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism. And at a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.
I am proud of the role Britain has played and will continue to play in promoting Europe’s security. Britain has led Europe on the measures needed to keep our continent secure – whether it is implementing sanctions against Russia following its action in Crimea, working for peace and stability in the Balkans, or securing Europe’s external border. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.
Well, if the reader lives in the real world then he or she will comprehend that Britain’s intelligence “capabilities” are one of the greatest progenitors of terrorism on the entire planet (and in its entire history), so the very important revelation in this statement is that Britain will continue to see Russia as an enemy on behalf of the EU. Again, we see the disgraceful lie about Crimea – the truth being that Crimeans voted to reconvert their land into Russian territory – to justify action to try and prevent Russia from being an economic threat to the EU. For it seems to the author that the potential of the Russian economy is at the root of all of this. It is deemed a threat. Russia won’t need to invade countries on its borders to create markets or find demographics that will seek closer ties. There are people in the East of Europe (not forgetting Greece) who are already very sympathetic to a Russia, which is trying to become an economically competitive trading nation while the EU is on the verge of full basket-case-hood. Market forces will drive the change of allegiances, and the duty of a British contingent of an EU “defence” force – or Army, if you like – will inevitably be more to do with preventing the disintegration and scattering of the EU into pieces than protecting anyone in it from Russian militarism.
Now let’s move onto the continuing primacy of EU law, and retention of elements of the Single Market and Custom Union membership.
And it is why, as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.
This will give the country maximum certainty as we leave the EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as they did before. And it will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate.
And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.
The first thing one might notice is that May says that the European Communities Act is going to be repealed. UKIP’s Gerard Batten has this to say about that: “repeal[ing] the 1972 European Communities Act, [would] legally make us no longer members of [the EU] under our own law.” (Source). If that’s the case, why would we need all the palaver centred around the triggering of Article 50? The truth appears to be coming out. The essential act in leaving the EU is the repealing of the EC Act 1972. May the author suggest, then, that the triggering of Article 50 is to allow an opportunity for the British Government and the EU to conspire to create apparently new circumstances which amount to the same thing – or maintain the old relationship under a new name – to be sold to the British public as being necessary for leaving the EU? Here is how it would work: the EU will want this thing, the British Government will want that. A compromise will have be made or else, we will be told, Britain can’t leave the EU. Then there will be the second level. The British Government will take the compromise to Parliament, which is pro-EU, and will quietly have this compromise watered down some more – it will be necessary, you see, to get the whole thing passed – after all, leaving the EU is what you want, isn’t it? And all this is not to mention the possibility of an EU court deciding in the very end if Parliament has made a deal that is fudge enough to be acceptable to it.
So now let’s deal with that EU law that is in fact already on the books. As May points out, it would be for a British Parliament to rescind it bit by bit. That would be ok, as long as there was a Parliament willing to do such a thing. As the UK Parliament is essentially captured for the EU against the British Constitution, as revealed here, and is a pro-EU body, then Britain can expect to continue to be ruled by law that has emanated out of Brussels for the good of the EU, and in the interest of Globalist standardisation. And you can expect Parliament to continue to make law that runs parallel with any new legislation that Brussels makes. Globalism is about restricting a nation according to standardised requirements – even if it is a so-called independent legislature imposing the restriction. Real independence means doing what’s best for yourself, and insisting that the world accommodates you.
European leaders have said many times that membership [of the Single Market] means accepting the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the Single Market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.
It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.
And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the Single Market.
So we do not seek membership of the Single Market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement.
(This is the really important bit…)
That Agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.
The Single Market, then, is about the freedom of movement for goods, capital, services and people. It’s a free trade agreement that also incorporates the free movement of people, and a little bit more; for instance, the “non-tariff” “barriers to trade” which are rules for standardisation or practise, quality and other red-tape stuff. (We can bet the British Government is going to want to keep this, again because the EU has been a starting place for the Globalist regularised paradigm).
Now, it’s important to understand that Britain’s single market access depends on Brussels’ willingness to separate the four freedoms – and the sounds being made are not promising. Furthermore, the British Government has already revealed that the survival of the EU Single Market is a priority.
Because we do not want to undermine the Single Market, and we do not want to undermine the European Union. We want the EU to be a success and we want its remaining member states to prosper. And of course we want the same for Britain.
It makes one wonder how much negotiating space there is. Consider that immigration from the EU into the UK is a multi-billion pound cash-cow in terms of monies being transferred by individuals, and think about the remote chance of EU governments wanting to give that up. Indeed, the British Government might not be expecting it:
Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.
Putting aside that it is disingenuous to compare the case of millions and millions of EU citizens in Britain, and the much smaller number of Britons across an entire continent, what is this all about? Are we expecting, given the cash-cow mentioned above, for EU citizens suddenly to be deprived of public housing, benefits – in-work or not – and whatever else the British welfare state can think of to give out? Because, their technically being foreign nationals, we should expect the teat to dry up instantly. Foreign nationals used to have the following stamped on their passports when they were given leave to remain in the UK: no recourse to public funds. However, the author doubts very much that this is going to happen, and the rights of EU citizens will include one to continue to cost the British tax payer billions of pounds every year (17bn to be precise, according this report).
The EU should ‘do its best to undermine the “homogeneity” of its member states’ said Peter Sutherland, the UN migration chief in 2012. Sutherland, who had been the non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, thinks that the prosperity of a country is subject to its being multicultural. In fact, what he’s talking about is that the prosperity of Globalists like him and his ilk is at risk if nations do not disintegrate into balkanised, poverty stricken, tribal collectives that can be manipulated in order to provide his enrichment. A constitutional nation, with a unifying identity under a set of commonly-held principles, can see and fend off threats to its way of life (this is Patriotism). Globalism demands an end to unified national and cultural identity. A tool to that end is mass immigration.
And so the author senses already that the invasion of Britain is not even going to be reversed, and that a new agreement with the EU will involve the continuation – even if it be covertly done by allowing further immigration along familial lines – of nation-destroying free movement of people.
Moving on to the issue of a Customs Union, which is concerned with uniform tariffs on goods imported into the EU area from external countries:
I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU’s Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals.
Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.
That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.
Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.
Look at the content of a tweet issued by the BBC’s Newsnight (source):
“I don’t think that you can do that” – @GuyVerhofstadt on whether the UK could be outside customs union but have a deal for car industry
The issue being referred to is how “the car industry” (when you look at this particular Guardian story, this talk emanates from the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) is concerned that the EU will demand a customs tariff that will make UK car manufacture uncompetitive. But this application of tax would be reciprocal, and as such a deterrent. Germany is the country that exports the most to the UK; its car manufacturers don’t want retaliatory hefty tariffs on exports into the UK as a consequence. So we should suspect that what we have here is actually an exercise of deception with three elements: a) there is the establishment of a position taken by the EU whereby there appears to little or no movement, b) there is a creation of a scare that gives the UK Government an impetus or excuse on moral grounds to surrender to the EU (when actually it doesn’t need to), and then c) the UK Government is justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a disadvantageous Customs Union.
Here’s some more from Guy Verhofstadt, the chief EU Brexit negotiator:
“I think this will not happen. We shall never accept a situation in which it is better to be outside the single market than be a member of the European union,” Mr Verhofstadt said.
“If you want the advantages you of a single market and customs union, you have to take the obligations,” he added.
Here we have the chief EU negotiator setting out a position of inflexibility. People are being set up to understand that the British Government will have to do a deal that might not conform to ideal notions of total independence. Let’s look at an actual case (from here):
The EU also has separate customs union agreements with Turkey, Andorra and San Marino.
Turkey’s agreement covers industrial products and processed agricultural products.
That means Turkey has to impose the common external tariff and meet EU regulations on its industrial products, but not its unprocessed agricultural ones.
So when Turkey negotiates trade agreements with other countries, it still has to impose the EU’s external tariff on industrial products and processed agricultural products (unless those countries also have trade deals with the EU).
It’s also a one-sided agreement, with non-EU countries that have free trade agreements with the EU automatically getting access to Turkish markets although Turkey does not get access to theirs.
And it means that on the products covered by the agreement, Turkey must keep to EU regulations.
The stench of EU protectionism is unmistakable. What could the British people need so badly from the dying, stinking corpse of the EU in order that they would see their country retain its vassal status? The UK Government is going to have to be at its most inventive.
Let’s recap on what to expect to happen: a) the setting out of the EU’s position whereby there appears to be little or no flexibility, b) the creation of a scare that seemingly causes the UK Government to surrender to the EU, and then c) the UK Government being justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a deal that is not in its best interests. This is how Theresa May and David Davies, and all the other fakers in the Tory party are going to deliver Fake Brexit.
Remember Haroon Rashid Aswat? In 2002 he became a wanted man. The US Government had charges for him to answer related to setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Although he sneaked in and out of Britain for a few days betwixt the end of June and 7th July 2005 (a significant date), he had mostly at that time been living abroad. Hence it was why he was seized in Zambia in 2005 to be shipped to the UK where he was arrested, on arrival, on behalf of the pursuing Americans. Thereafter he remained in custody awaiting extradition proceedings – which were frustrated by his apparently suffering with paranoid schizophrenia to the extent that in 2008 he was incarcerated at Broadmoor. Eventually, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, moved to have him sent to the US, and in 2014 he was finally in the clutches of the American authorities. During this process, Aswat’s infamy was inflated by allegations that he had made a number of telephone calls to the people who, or so we are told, committed the 7/7 bombings in London. He was labelled the “mastermind” behind the Terror on the Tube.
With that initial briefing over, the reader might well be asking what any of it has got to do with an article that is going to be about the Jo Cox incident of 2016. The answer, dear reader, is that Haroon Rashid shares the same name as Jo Cox’s Office Manager, Fazila. Additionally, he also hails from Batley. This is a very interesting coincidence after you have concluded that the Jo Cox incident was a false flag, and possibly a hoax, and also after you have had it on good authority that Haroon Rashid Aswat was an Mi6 asset. And so Haroon has got something to do with this article, which is about gathering intelligence into one place, and noticing interesting facts and coincidences, in the history and circumstances of some of the players in the Jo Cox incident, that take on a fascinatingly different and less ordinary tone when one has become certain that, with regards said incident, we are dealing with “fake news”.
Let’s begin with Aswat. He was connected with an organisation called Al-Muhajiroun, and a collaborative effort with British intelligence to recruit immigrants in the UK into the jihadist Kosovo Liberation Army at the time of the destabilisation of Yugoslavia. This is the claim of intelligence expert John Loftus. His source appears to be comments made by Sheikh Omar Bakri – also a top man in Al-Muhajiroun. Loftus’ said this:
October 16, 2001, he gave a detailed interview with al-Sharq al-Aswat, an Arabic newspaper in London, describing the relationship between British intelligence and the operations in Kosovo and Al-Muhajiroun. So that’s how we get all these guys connected. It started in Kosovo, Haroon was 31 years old, he came on about 1995.
As mentioned above, Aswat was a Batley man, as evidenced here:
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed a British national was in custody in Zambia, but the Aswat family from Batley Carr has not been told if it is Haroon Rashid Aswat, with whom they have had no contact for 10 years.
… and here:
A LINK was found between a Batley man and the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
US authorities revealed details after Haroon Aswat admitted terror charges on Monday.
People owning the same names (not to be repeated here) as Haroon Aswat’s parents are listed at 192.com as living at an address in Batley. A Fazila Aswat (with other names that appear to verify her as the same associated with Jo Cox) is also listed at 192.com as living at an address in Batley. However, it must be stressed that these are clearly not the same households, and there appears to be more than two Aswat households in Batley, with no way of telling if any are related to the other. Please note this very important point: it isn’t the objective of this article to establish any link between Fazila and Haroon, nor imply that Fazila Aswat is an operative for any intelligence agencies – as Haroon Rashid Aswat is reported to be.
Fazila Aswat’s father has a different name, indicating that Fazila is an Aswat by marriage. We know Gulham Maniyar is her parent because he spoke for Fazila at the time of the Jo Cox incident, and notably was described as an ex-Labour Party councillor.
Miss Aswat, who had worked for the MP for a year, is too distressed to speak publicly, but the horrifying detail of the attack was given yesterday by her father, former Labour Councillor Ghulam Maniyar, 59.
Now, it came to the author’s attention that a former Councillor by the name of Ghulam Maniyar found himself in a spot of bother back in 2012. He (by then a former politician) and a colleague, a man who was contemporaneously a councillor, were under investigation by Kirkless Council for financial irregularities related to an Islamic burial service that the two men ran.
It has been alleged that the men may have taken up to £1m from families during the 25 years they have leased the private plot near Dewsbury Cemetery.
A [Kirklees Council] spokesman said: “The investigation is more than 50 per cent complete. So far there has been no police or tax authority involvement.
Accusations against the men appear to include grossly overcharging for burials, paying scant regard to “environmental regulations about bodies potentially contaminating the water table”, and packing the site beyond capacity with no proper plot records being kept. Abdul Patel, Maniyar’s partner, was also embroiled in accusations of postal vote fraud (from this article, where we discover that Maniyar had been a councillor for Batley East).
At the start of 2015, there was very much a sense of a blind eye being turned to the activities of Maniyar and Patel by Kirkless Council – if a local newspaper article written at the time is anything to go by.
KIRKLEES Council has refused to disclose details of how much public money it lost by failing to collect rent from the Muslim cemetery being run by one of its councillors.
At a meeting with district mosque elders at the time, Coun Patel and Mr Maniyar were understood to be holding profits of more than £300,000, without being constituted either as a company or charity.
Kirklees admitted this week it had no idea of the men’s or the organisation’s legal standing, or whether they had paid any taxes on the revenues.
A report on the outcome of this case couldn’t be found. It appears as if the abovementioned article is, as they say, “your lot”. And it looks like any investigation of Patel and Maniyar stayed very much within the bounds of the Kirklees Council – who seemingly claimed ignorance.
We are going to leave the matter right there, except to quote Danny Lockwood, the publisher of the local newspaper which did a proper job of journalism to investigate what were obviously serious allegations of corruption (the frustration at the idea that justice has not been served is palpable):
By hiding behind the excuse of there being a ‘commercial sensitivity’ to the information, Kirklees merely reinforces the idea that both it and Coun Patel have something to hide.
Next item on the agenda is the charity work of Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major. These ladies were with Jo Cox when she was attacked, and were described as her assistants. Fazila Aswat was supposedly Jo Cox’s Office Manager, and Sandra Major her Senior Case Worker. Someone called Fazila Aswat has also been involved with the Royal Voluntary Service in the West Yorkshire area. We know this through internet articles; this one, of 2013, for example, states that Fazila Aswat was the “Locality Manager for the region”; this one, of 2014, states that Fazila Aswat was the “locality manager for RVS in West Yorkshire”, and this one, of February 2015, states that Fazila Aswat was “the RVS locality manager in Huddersfield” – obviously it’s the same role slightly differently described each time. We know Jo Cox’s Fazila Aswat could be, or have been involved with the RVS because she mentions the charity on her Facebook page, and there is at least one source of data on the internet which links her (through an image in which she is named) to the RVS – see here. However, this particular article doesn’t mention that Fazila Aswat works for the RVS. Moreover, it’s interesting to discover that there is no mention of any link between Jo Cox and the RVS through Fazila Aswat in a couple of articles on the RVS website (here and here) – which are about recognition of the charity by the official Jo Cox memorial fund (more on this later).
Of course, Fazila Aswat was something of a poster child for some predictable “heroic Muslim woman beating off nasty neo-Nazi with handbag” propaganda. As for Sandra Major, we know what she looks like through some limited appearances on TV (apparently). The author only knows what she looks like because Look North published an image of her (tweeted here). As it happens, a woman of that same name is involved with the Batley Food Bank – in fact this woman helped create it. In an October 21st article, about a GMB Union event raising awareness (and funds, according to the title of the piece) for food banks, Major is described as the “co-founder of Batley Food Bank”. An image embedded in the page (without caption) shows a woman who looks very much like the Sandra Major of the Look North tweet. Furthermore, an article entitled “Donation made to Food Bank in memory of Jo Cox” contains another image (also without caption) in which the same woman is shown receiving the said donation in the form of a cheque – suggesting that she is Sandra Major – described as one of the “project leaders of Batley Food Bank”. We can also very much infer from the article that Sandra Major is still involved in the Batley Food Bank, post Jo Cox. Furthermore, a LinkedIn profile for a Fazila Aswat lists her current situation as “Service co-ordinator at WRVS” – although the WRVS is the old name for the RVS, so this could just be out of date.
Indeed, it has been asserted that Fazila Aswat worked for Jo Cox up to a year ahead of the incident – it says so in the the extract from the MailOnline further up this page. It uses the word “worked”, not volunteered. It has also been asserted that Sandra Major and Fazila Aswat were Jo Cox’s Senior Caseworker and Office Manager respectively. This information (a pdf file) from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority lists the official role titles of staff that an MP can employ, and the salary attached to the role. Amongst these are Senior Caseworker, and Office Manager. Both roles are salaried. Sandra Major, if she was a Senior Case Worker, and Fazila Aswat, if she were an Office Manager, would be working for Jo Cox. And look at this, which appears to come from a financial statement (found here):
This is the annual account written by Fazila Aswat (Constituency office manager) for late Jo Cox MP for their parliamentary work in the financial year 2015-16.
Fazila Aswat apparently did work for Jo Cox. And the document reveals that Cox employed:
A part time Office Manager, part time Senior Caseworker, Senior Parliamentary Assistant and a part time Parliamentary Assistant based in the constituency.
Back to that Jo Cox Food Bank donation story abovementioned, though, and there is something interesting about it (which we also find in the RVS website articles about Jo Cox – above) in that there is no linkage of the MP to the charity through her staff. For the sake of poignancy, in both cases, here in articles about the commemoration of Jo Cox through good deeds, there would be a great opportunity for a writer to mention that Fazila Aswat, a (current or former?) RVS worker had been Jo Cox’s assistant, and in the Food Bank article, so too had Sandra Major – but instead there is not a donated-sausage, nor either one that comes in a meal on wheels.
So, the author gets a sense that for some reason we can’t be allowed to appreciate that the Sandra Major and Fazila Aswat connected to Jo Cox had these other lives as charitable workers. No instances can be found in the corporate-media, or on the broader internet, where Jo Cox’s political assistants are identified as also, simultaneously (or formerly), being representative of charities. Of course, this could be just to do with the not being able to find it.
And so, given this apparent schizophrenia, one wonders in what capacity Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major attended the House of Commons when on, 11th May 2016, Jo Cox took a delegation of Batley charity workers to London (source): “The Royal Voluntary Service, Alzheimer’s Society, Batley Food Bank and Community Partnerships were among those who attended the meetings in Parliament.” If the reader looks at the image within the article, Fazila Aswat can be seen, and Sandra Major is also there. Again, not one of them is identified as being of Cox’s staff. In fact, it can be inferred from the article that they represent the charitable organisations.
Whatever was going on in Batley (let’s not get into potential abuse of positions that should be apolitical) here we can see that the women of the Jo Cox incident are linked through a number of strands. One might say that they seem on the surface to be as thick as thieves.
Speaking of which, the Food Bank, which in the opinion of the author is actually a national phenomenon that is something approaching a racket – see this article on the subject – was something of a hobby horse for Jo Cox. Examine these articles and extracts:
From 26th November 2015 (here)
Jo Cox is backing a local building society in its bid to support Batley Food Bank as it helps people put the basics on their kitchen table this Christmas.
Here she is making a political point in the House of Commons: “Jo Cox challenges PM on priorities” (source).
If you revisit that article about the GMB Food Bank Fundraiser, you’ll find this at its foot:
Special thanks to Batley Bulldogs, Leeds Rhinos, Castleford Tigers, Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen, Aakash Restaurant and Tesco for their support.
(Note, the patronage of the Batley Food Bank by its MP didn’t start with Jo Cox. Her predecessor was also involved. Here is a report from 2013; and notice that one of the volunteers is a Suleman Aswat).
So, we have Jo Cox raising the profile of an organisation that, in her constituency, is headed up by someone who apparently works for her. Finally, remember that Fazlia Aswat is associated somehow with the Royal Voluntary Service. When a GoFundMe money raising campaign was started “In celebration and memory of Jo Cox”, proceeds would be “invested in creating the fairer, kinder and more tolerant world Jo fought for”. Three charities were named as recipients, and there seemed to be an odd one out. Two of the causes were the White Helmets, and Hope Not Hate – thoroughly discredited organisations that exist for purely political purposes of the most destructive kind. The third one was the Royal Voluntary Service. Nearly £2 million has been raised with this campaign, and people are still giving.
In the first part of this series we examined a grouping of data from two eye-witnesses, given independently of each other to corporate-media, which agreed to one particular version of the attack on Jo Cox. In this part we look at another version that is mainly constructed from the testimony to court, in the trial of Thomas Mair, the man since convicted of murdering Jo Cox, of her political associates who had been accompanying her at the time of the attack. Rather fortunately, some of this data was collected and reported (here and here) by Nick Kollerstrom who attended the trial, and thus, because it had been omitted by corporate-media, was saved from oblivion. All of this information tells of an attack by someone wearing different items of clothing than told of in the other version of events, and relegates the idea of an intervening have-a-go-hero to something between a minor footnote and an invention. In this second version too, the attacker is said to make political statements (we’ll examine the trial testimony of all the people who said they heard these utterances – and show that there are very good reasons not to trust it). To conclude the series, and drawing everything together, an explanation for the antagonism of detail in the story of Jo Cox’s death will be contemplated: e.g. that a drill – a practice exercise – was happening simultaneously. Drills that sit underneath real events are a feature that recorders of State Crime have come to expect to see in a false flag attack, and this is what the Jo Cox incident appears to the author to be.
Sandra Major was Jo Cox’s senior caseworker. The following is the fullest account of her trial testimony that the author can find. In fact, this account is the only occasion when Sandra Major’s account hadn’t been broken into snippets and randomly distributed about many articles. This fragmentation of information is a feature of the reporting of the Jo Cox case. It may reflect the eratic and giddy minds of the generation now writing for corporate-media, but it actively prevents a reader gaining an appreciative grip on what should be a very simple timeline of a series of actions. The effect produced is one whereby a reader can only obtain an abstract general impression of what happened. If it’s not deliberate, the style of the corporate-media is very handy for its purposes.
Sandra Major had the clearest view of the beginning of the deadly attack. She had got out of the car’s front passenger seat and walked a few paces ahead of Jo and Fazila Aswat. She told a hushed courtroom: “In my peripheral vision I saw a man walking past me. He had a gun in his hand, he raised his arm and he shot Jo in the head … in the area of the temple.
“She fell back onto the ground and there was blood pouring down her face. He said something along the lines of ‘keep Britain independent’ or ‘British independence’.”
Mrs Major described the gun as being “short, it wasn’t a shotgun, but it was quite deep”. She said 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. It was black. Jo was lying on the floor and she sort of tried to push herself up using her right arm but he just started stabbing while she was lying on the floor. He was stabbing her.
“Fazila was in between two parked cars. We started to hit him with our handbags. Fazila said ‘get away from her, she has two little children’. I was just screaming. I thought if people came he might go away.
“Jo could not get up but she did a sideways roll and went into the road. He went towards both of us. We were quite close together. Jo was in the road and she shouted ‘get away you two, get away. Let him hurt me, don’t let him hurt you’.
“He’d started to walk away a few feet but when Jo shouted out he came back. Then he shot her twice more and started stabbing her again. She was on the floor. She did not get up again.”
Mrs Major said that Mair then walked away, down Market Street in the direction of Bradford Road.
Like Sandra Major’s trial testimony, that of Fazila Aswat is usually dismantled and thrown haphazardly into several articles. The author found two fuller accounts, and the following is the less clumsy of the two:
Ms Aswat became officer manager and personal assistant to Mrs Cox when she was elected in May 2015.
She described parking the car in the street outside the library shortly before the attack. She said: “I got out of the car and I was stood on the roadside. Jo walked over to the side of the pavement. Sandra, she was already there. In that instant, our lives changed forever. The next thing I saw was Jo was on the floor and this man was stood over her with a knife.”
Ms Aswat started shouting for help, and heard a gun shot and saw Mrs Cox getting stabbed. She said: “I can remember the hand motion, it was really fast, so I cannot say which hand he used.”
Mr Whittam said: “Did you encourage her to run away?”
She replied: “I shouted, ‘Jo, you need to run’.
“After the first part of the incident, the man seemed to be retreating, so I ran back towards Jo. At that time, everything was focuses [sic] on Jo. I said, you need to get up. At that time she was talking – ‘Fazila, I cannot run, I am hurt’.”
Even at that time, she was “so composed”, but unfortunately “he then came back”, she told the court.
Ms Aswat said: “Jo was no longer on the pavement, we were on the road. When he first came back, I was standing over Jo, and I was saying to her, I was referring to her children – ‘just think of X and Y, you need to get up and run’. I started swinging my handbag and he swiped his knife towards me several times – not necessarily to attack me but to get me away from Jo, because he wanted to get her again.”
She said she then heard a further two gunshots, and saw him stabbing Mrs Cox again.
Asked if he said anything during he attack, she told the court: “Not during the attack, it was at the very end. He stood up and said, ‘Britain first’.” [Also ‘Britain first, Britain will always come first’ in another article].
He then left the scene and headed down the road, she told the court.
She added: “Jo was in my arms. It probably took about three or four minutes for the police and ambulance to arrive. But at that moment, it felt like a lifetime.”
Let’s notice what is common to both accounts. The first act of the attack was one in which the assailant knifed Cox as she was lying down on the pavement. The method by which Cox was floored appears to have been the first gun shot. Aswat didn’t see the gun being raised, but heard it being fired (yes, the journalism does suggest that she started screaming before this, but it’s likely just bad writing). Then the two women seem to have been able to get themselves between Cox and her assailant so that they could hit him with handbags – Aswat puts this down to an opportunity arising by his having retreated a little. Jo Cox, in the meantime, had moved from the pavement into the road – Major says that this was done by the execution of a sideways roll. Aswat implies that there was a second time that the assailant walked away and returned; Major explicitly states it, and we discover that the second return to the victim was actually triggered by further shouting by Jo Cox herself (which is a very interesting detail). At this point the assailant shot Cox twice, and then stabbed her some more. When the attack had concluded, the assailant escaped down Market Street. The only big difference, on first impression, between the accounts appears to be that Major says that the assailant made his political statements at the start of the assault, and Aswat says that he made them at the end. However, we are also fed another grain of information in another place (here) that Major is meant to have stated that at the end of the assault “[Cox] was on the floor. She didn’t get up again. He was still shouting and shouting”.
Conspicuous by its absence in either of the accounts was the notion of any intervention by a have-a-go-hero. Now, this sort of thing could have been the cause of at least one of the retreats made by the assailant, but why is it not mentioned? Did the court reporting make the omission, or did the witnesses? The author was able to find one exceedingly significant fragment of information relating to Fazila Aswat’s testimony that does indeed betray at least one omission of vital data made by court reporting. Here it is:
In cross examination, Mr Russell-Flint simply asked Mrs Aswat a few details about the attacker’s appearance and clothing. As she left the witness stand she looked straight at Mair in the dock. He maintained his blank stare, straight ahead.
Let’s not be of any doubt, this paragraph is designed to make it look as though Fazila Aswat recognises the man in the dock, supposedly one Thomas Mair of Birstall, as the attacker, so something very important has cunningly been used in a casual way to relate another message to the reader. That real vital thing of importance is that demonstrated here is proof that Aswat was asked about the appearance of the suspect when he supposedly killed Cox. Aswat did answer – we know this because of Nick Kollerstrom – but apparently she didn’t speak in a way that was acceptable for the narrative, and we’ll deal with this shortly. Firstly, let’s appreciate that at no time were any of the witnesses in court asked to identify Mair as the person who was seen killing Jo Cox, and again we can thank Kollerstrom for the fact that we know this. Let’s be clear, trial witnesses could be talking about a different person altogether if they don’t identify the suspect in the trial as the object of their testimony, and anyone receiving the information would naturally ascribe the actions described to the person they had been told to believe was the suspect. So, with this extract, the writer is urging the reader to form this connection of positive identification for themselves. It is only to be expected from state-controlled corporate-media looking to deceive its audience.
Now, returning to Aswat’s concealed answer. According to Kollerstrom (who is presumably paraphrasing), this was as follows:
The fellow was 5’ 10” high, in his late 50s, with white silvery hair over his head and ears, wore a dark baseball cap and had a blue rucksack.
Not only that, Kolllestrom recorded what was said by Sandra Major regarding this matter:
He had a black or blue baseball cap, and was wearing a shirt and tie.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that Cox was attacked by a man wearing a dark cap does not appear in any corporate-media reporting that the author has looked at. Kollerstrom is not inventing this information. That the assailant was wearing a black cap has been verified, independently of any court reporting, in an interview by the BBC with a local resident, Sam Watson (see this video). So here is the second version of the attack: a man wearing a black or dark cap who shouts political statements, and who leaves off the attack twice (for unknown reasons) only to return to Jo Cox and continue it.
Finally, there are three points worthy of remark about the testimony by Aswat and Major. Firstly, notice how very strange the idea is that Jo Cox could calmly insert herself vocally into proceedings the way she did. She was shot in the head in the very first instance, at point blank range. The force of the shot knocked her flat onto the pavement. In that state, would she be able to be aware of and comment on the whereabouts and doings of others? Secondly, the testimony confirms that the attack happened almost instantly after the women got out of the car. However, a previous investigation at this site shows that there is no way that a figure shown in CCTV footage who is purported to be Mair could have reached this party of women on time – unless they hung around outside the library to wait for him. That any procrastination did not happen is not ruled out by the testimony, but it certainly would have been odd behaviour for people who were actually due to hold a surgery for the public in a matter of minutes. Thirdly, we shouldn’t forget that Major and Aswat are Labour Party operatives. This case was political, and it remains political. The Labour Party were officially backing Britain remaining in the EU during the campaigning period for the referendum on EU membership, and this incident was exploited politically for engineering emotionally-driven support for that cause.
Moving on to the next person of interest: Rashid Hussain. The corporate-media carried images of a man reported to be Rashid Hussain arriving at court and please note, he appeared to be a bearded man of Asian descent. The following is an example of the more substantial sort of thing that appears on the internet regarding Rashid Hussain’s testimony:
Local taxi driver Rashid Hussain pulled up at around the same time as Mrs Cox’s arrival at Birstall Library in a silver Vauxhall Astra. As he was giving his fare her change, he heard what sounded like a “firecracker”, jurors were told.
Mr Hussain demonstrated in the witness box how the man had stabbed Mrs Cox five or six times in front of him.
He said: “When I reached near, he stepped back. I said: ‘What are you doing? What’s wrong with you?’ He said: ‘Move back, otherwise I’m going to stab you.’ He was standing there with two ladies and another man. He said, ‘Better move back.’ He shot twice. He moved back and shot again.”
Mr Hussain told jurors that by this point Mrs Cox, who he had recognised as his MP, was bleeding and was being helped by an Asian woman. He said: “Jo’s head was in her lap and she was pleading for Jo to stand up, talking about her kids. Her hands and clothes were covered in blood. She was the only person there helping her.”
Additionally, other reportage elsewhere includes this snippet of data (source):
Mr Hussain said the man came back and fired two more shots at #JoCox – the man then shouted something, the last words were “Britain first”
So, Hussain agrees with the two women in these most important respects: that the attacker interrupted his attack (Hussain is not clear about how many times), and a political statement was uttered by the attacker (at the end of the attack). Notice, there is no mention of an intervention by a man who subsequently gets injured – the author could not find any instance of Hussain reporting this. However, the reader might have noticed this: “[the attacker] was standing there with two ladies and another man.” The author is at a loss as to what this is supposed to be describing. The two ladies must be Major and Aswat. But who could the other man be? According to the official story, the only person who got near the attacker got stabbed; this was Bernard Kenny, and (especially) for a 77-year-old, this was quite dynamic:
“I jumped out of the car. I thought if I could jump on to the back, I could take him down. I thought he was thumping her until I saw the blood. I saw he had a knife in his hands. Just as I got short of him, he turned around and saw me. He shoved the knife in and it hit me in the stomach. The blood started pouring out between my fingers. I saw the blood and I thought ‘Oh my God.’”
He described staggering away to a nearby sandwich shop, from where he could see the man “going berserk with a knife”.
Not a lot of “standing there” going on in any of that lot. In the first part of this series, it was shown that there should be enormous doubt about a man called Bernard Kenny intervening in the event (to the point of understanding that it didn’t happen). Could Hussain be telling us about the real incident?
Elsewhere on the internet, it is revealed that Rashid Hussain was also asked about the appearance of the attacker.
Taxi driver Rashid Hussain now being cross-examined by Thomas Mair’s QC. One question about appearance then witness leaves court.
Unfortunately, Sky’s Andy Hughes, who reported this in a tweet (here), failed to follow up. Again, is this because the attacker appeared to Hussain in a way that would have been contrary to the official narrative? Well, the answer is probably yes. Kollerstrom tells of how most witnesses in court tell of a man in a black or dark hat.
There is a problem with Hussain as a witness, and this is revealed in more tweets by Sky correspondents in court.
Taxi driver Rashid Hussain was in Birstall village on day #JoCox was killed – was taking customer to local Tesco store
Mr Hussain said he saw #JoCox on the street as he pulled up to drop customer off. Said he then heard sound of firing and shouting
From this we can ascertain that Hussain is claiming that he saw Cox – pre-attack – as he was pulling up to drop off a customer for Tesco. The Tesco Express in Birstall is on a parallel street – Smithies Lane – and has its own car park. This doesn’t mean that Hussain didn’t pull up on Market Street to drop his fare off – as he must have done to get a visual on Cox – and the usual practice of taxi drivers in Birstall isn’t known by the author, but it occurs that it would be a little odd if Hussain didn’t drop off as close as possible. However, the point really is this: this information should have been tested in court. Hussain should have been asked to clarify, because if he dropped a fare in the car park at Tesco, how did he see Jo Cox outside the library? It is quite acceptable in trials to try to establish that a witness could not in fact see or hear what he or she claims to have seen, and therefore is unreliable. There are lots of reasons why people do invent stories, including having an official narrative override their own impressions. Why wasn’t it tested for in this case?
Now we turn to Jack Foster, another witness who supposedly heard the attacker make a political statement. There isn’t much reporting of this witness; usually his testimony is presented in short and similar terms to this (paraphrasing): “Another witness who heard Mair shout Britain First was Jack Foster” (so it is reported). The following is the most substantial that the author could find.
Jack Foster told the court he saw the man, having shot Ms Cox once, reload his gun before shooting her twice more.
The England fan, who was wearing a red Three Lions football shirt ahead of a Euro 2016 game that evening, told how he shouted “f***ing leave her alone” but he took no notice.
“He reloaded his gun again, putting two cartridges in, cocked it and shot her on the floor,” Mr Foster said.
He told the court he and two other men followed the man into a nearby street.
Mr Foster added: “He casually walked off. No remorse, no nothing.”
Has the reader noticed what is wrong with this? It is the claim that the attacker put two cartridges in his weapon, and cocked it. Mair didn’t have a shotgun, which is what Foster is describing. He had a bolt action weapon that took a single round. The priming of the firing pin in such a weapon is performed in the movement of the bolt, the trigger doesn’t need to be cocked. When the bolt closes on an empty breech, one pulls the trigger to discharge the firing pin. So if Foster saw Cox being attacked with a shotgun, he didn’t see Thomas Mair attack her, because Thomas Mair, or so we are told, used a sawn-off bolt action rifle. If Foster was merely badly mistaken about what he witnessed, then why could he not have been badly mistaken about what Mair was supposed to have said that had political significance at a politically sensitive time? Again, the question must be asked, why wasn’t this catastrophic inaccuracy pursued by Mair’s defence?
The only other witness to supposedly hear the attacker make political statements was a woman known as Tracy Bywood, “who was washing up in a care home kitchen overlooking the attack scene when it unfolded” (source). This is the fullest account of her testimony that could be found:
“I saw him wind his hand in her hair and drag her off the pavement,” she said.
“It was horrible what I saw. She went down on the floor like a sack of potatoes. It was awful to see a lady get such animosity.”
She said she was “fairly sure” she heard “someone shout Britain First”.
“He was so peaceful and calm as if he hadn’t done anything wrong,” she said.
She told the jury she heard a “popping noise” and said: “I won’t even buy Pringles any more, I can’t handle the noise of the seal breaking.”
It should be noted that the Priestley Care Home is a large complex separated from the crime scene by about 100 feet and a community hall which is nevertheless set back from the road so that a green space does potentially afford a view for anyone looking up Market Street. However, there does appear to be a lot of trees interrupting any vantage point Bywood could have occupied, and it is unquestionably relatively remote from the place of the incident. The problem with the testimony should be self-evident, and the defence counsel should have gone after it. In addition, Bywood says that Cox came to be on the road because she was dragged there by someone pulling her hair. This is not what Cox’s political associates said.
Let’s just accept that Tracey Bywood was able to see the attacker drag Jo Cox into the road by her hair. Why is there such a fundamental discrepancy between this account and Fazila Aswat and Sandra Major’s version of events? In the bigger picture as discussed over two FBEL articles, how do we explain two general versions of events? What begins to suggest itself to the author as a possible explanation is that a drill, or a practise exercise, was scheduled at the very same time as the actual incident took place. Some people on the scene could have been privy to this, and as such would have acted out appropriately to the incident understanding that it wasn’t real, but that they must react to it as if it was. These people would be working to a script, and this authoritative version (when the incident was being recalled) would override any deviation that might have occurred after the incident had gone live – meaning, the real life “murder” was allowed to run its course (more on this in a moment). People who were not privy to this script would simply report what they had seen. They might also, after the fact, start to repeat elements of the official script (which would be presented in corporate-media or introduced on the ground by operatives) as they lose confidence in the certainty of their own experience.
When a drill goes live, the perpetrator, who would previously merely only have pretended to commit the offense around which the drill is organised, actually turns into a real offender and commits a real offence. The drill actors, after having played their parts according to a script, would be told at the end of the event that there was a real incident after all, and would probably be hemmed in contractually (or by threats) from discussing the process that they had been a party to – as much of it that they could understand. As the perpetrator would be a proxy for the State Criminal, and as such undiscoverable, there would have to be a patsy to take the fall for the crime. Subsequently, witnesses would report seeing the perpetrator and also the patsy – who would, by some ruse or other, be made to be entangled in proceedings to such an extent that witnesses could easily be persuaded into thinking that he was the one and only actual offender. In the Jo Cox incident, Thomas Mair, living alone as he did (and thus making it easy for police to plant evidence at his home) and having mental illness so that, left alone, he could not begin to unpick himself from his entanglements, would have been a perfect patsy.
In the case of the Jo Cox incident, where a body could not be produced as evidence to a jury in a murder trial, there is a case to make that the pretend murder aspect of the drill was not changed, and it remained pretend – i.e. it was a hoax rather than a false flag. Only Jo Cox, the perpetrator, and the “emergency services” that first dealt with her would be knowledgable of this scenario. Other drill actors would still be told that something went wrong, and that there had been a real murder after all. The patsy is always in the dark. There is evidence that this could have happened. Consider how Twitter user “ScotsFootyCards” in Birstall took imagery on 13:07 and 13:08 that showed ambulance and police approaching Smithies Lane, so at this point the the incident was 15 minutes old. Fazila Aswat, however, reported that it had taken three or four minutes for the police and ambulance to arrive, presumably, from the context of her testimony, after the attacker had made his escape. If there is CCTV footage of the attacker fleeing the scene at 12:53, then we’re looking at the arrival of police – but more significantly an ambulance, which is meant to await police clearance to enter a crime scene – according to Fazila Aswat, at about 12:56-12:58. Theoretically, this could be the cover-up squad arriving ahead of the real response.
At the top of this it was mentioned that this article rounds off a two-part series. However, there will be one more on the subject of Jo Cox appearing at this site that examines the hypothesis that what happened on June 16th 2016 was the culmination of a long term plan to sway voters to choose Remain in the EU Referendum.
A note on video evidence shown at the trial
Nick Kollerstrom reported that the footage shown to the court was barely visible from the public gallery. “Lots of other CCTV was shown, in none of which I could recognize him [Mair], but someone with a white cap was bobbing around. Other visitors I spoke to (tho [sic] you’re not supposed to) did not see anything much in these videos.”
This CCTV footage is undoubtedly recorded by the same camera that filmed footage of Market Street that has made public by West Yorkshire Police, and which is purported by police to show Mair making his escape. In this footage it is very hard to see what is happening behind the fleeing figure back at the scene of the crime. The author suggests that there is no way that anyone looking at this film could distinguish facial features that could inform them that Thomas Mair had been the perpetrator of a crime, or indeed what any crime actually constituted.
After sifting through the information that is in the public domain regarding the supposed murder of Jo Cox, a real picture emerges of what happened on 16th June 2016. This picture, however, isn’t very easy to comprehend; it doesn’t make any sense, for it tells of something that is not rational, which is this: as described by various people who witnessed the event, it appears that there were two assailants, and perhaps therefore two attacks on Jo Cox. We can generally sort the accounts into two broad groupings. The first is of a man, wearing a white cap, who begins to attack Jo Cox and is set upon by an intervening bystander. The second is of a man, wearing a black cap, who is heard to make political statements while he attacks Jo Cox. There are crossover elements, and we could weave them together to make a unified story, except that the fact remains that some witnesses saw a black cap, and some saw a white cap on the head of the man who attacked Jo Cox – while he was attacking her.
Of course, common sense tells us that this split-reality cannot possibly be, and yet that doesn’t mean that the information that instructs this picture must be rejected. Rather, if we regard ourselves as thinking people, we need to acknowledge that the information requires a different explanation other than the one that has been given to us. It’s not beholden upon us to piece together any such explanation. It is enough for us to show that the official narrative is contradicted and undermined by data that different arms of the Establishment have conspired together to ignore, omit or restrict for public consumption – activity which in itself is evidence of a cover-up. Cover-ups by government and its accessories are used to hide a truth unacceptable to a body that has it in its power to punish – the People, if they but knew it. And the author suspects that the truth of the Jo Cox incident is that it was yet another State Crime Against Democracy. Punishment is long overdue – if only the public would take an interest.
The witness Hichem Ben Abdallah is now well known in the pages hereabouts as being someone who gave us some very important information when he was interviewed in the first hours after the Jo Cox incident: “Britain First” was not something said by the man attacking Jo Cox. However, it has to be said that other testimony he gave was somewhat confusing – that is, it was confusing before we were able to appreciate that there was something skew-whiff about the the official narrative. Let’s revisit two pieces of data related via the eye-witness account of Ben Abdallah. The first follows immediately, and we’ll return to the second by-and-by:
[Ben Abdallah] said: “There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag.
The attacker, wearing a white baseball cap, was interfered with by a supposedly otherwise innocent bystander as he tried to commit his crime. According to the corporate-media, not too long after the incident was first being reported, it emerged that the man who had intervened was a 77 year old known as Bernard Kenny. Now, Bernard Kenny is not so much a sideshow in the Jo Cox affair as a whole carnival in itself – because he might actually be dead (hence the reference to the funeral in the title). An obituary turned up on the internet for a Bernard Kenny, of the Leeds area, married to a Doreen – which was the same name of Kenny’s wife as per the Jo Cox narrative – and some eager people jumped to the conclusion that this was meant to be the Bernard Kenny. In other words, it appeared that Bernard Kenny couldn’t have intervened because he had been dead since 2013.
It later turned out that there was in fact another Bernard Kenny – a Bernard Carter Kenny – of Birstall itself, and this had been the man of the Jo Cox affair. Indeed, the corporate-media started to openly state the middle name when it came to cover the trial just so that there could be no confusion. The misunderstanding was solved, right? Well no, because at the time of the attack on Jo Cox, the following information was disseminated as gospel truth:
Mr Kenny shared the same birthday as the mother-of-two MP – he will turn 78 on Wednesday [22nd June] and was 36 years older than Mrs Cox.
Calls are now growing for the former miner, who turns 78 on Wednesday – the same day that Cox had been due to celebrate her 42nd birthday – to be awarded the George Cross for his actions.
On the other hand, Bernard Carter Kenny was apparently born in September of 1938 – as an internet researcher claims to have discovered (and the video can be viewed here). And note how Bernard Kenny was still 77 when, on the 26th June, he attended a Batley Bulldogs rugby league match and performed a ceremony in memory of Jo Cox ahead of kick-off – see the story here and here.
It very much appears, then, that the Bernard Kenny who the media claimed had intervened in the event wasn’t Bernard Carter Kenny, because (until anyone can show otherwise) the latter has the wrong birthday.
Maybe this is why there was deafening silence from Bernard Carter Kenny’s son, Phillip, when buzzed by the corporate-media. Mr Philip Kenny apparently taught geography at the grammar school in Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire, so we are told this made him Jo Cox’s teacher. Indeed, the fact came straight from the horse’s mouth (here):
In a Tweet posted in December 2015 she says: “End of an era. My former geography teacher Mr Kenny has retired from Heckmondwike Grammar. All the best for your retirement Phil.”
(although the school’s website currently implies that a Mr Kenny still works at the school)
Perhaps the Mirror journalists attempting to get a scoop thought that they would find grist for the myth when they approached Mr Kenny and his school for comment, and perhaps they didn’t imagine they would be met with this (from here):
Phil [Kenny], aged 56, declined to discuss the remarkable coincidence politely saying from his home in nearby Batley he did not want to talk.
Head Teacher Mike Cooke refused to discuss the link between the pair and declined to say if Jo may have known the former teacher’s “hero” dad.
If Bernard Kenny wasn’t involved in the Jo Cox incident, then we discover from corporate-media reportage that West Yorkshire police wouldn’t have been surprised. Officially – early on, at least – the man who had intervened was entirely much younger:
West Yorkshire Police said in a statement: “At 12.53pm today, police were called to a report of an incident on Market Street, Birstall, where a woman in her 40s had suffered serious injuries and is in a critical condition.
“A man in his late 40s to early 50s nearby also suffered slight injuries.”
Bearing this in mind, now consider that second extract of Ben Abdullah (related) evidence – as was promised above:
Outside the library, he [Ben Abdullah] saw a bystander who he believed to be the owner of a nearby dry cleaners stepping in to help Ms Cox.
However, the dry cleaner owner in question has told The Indpendent it was not he who intervened, as has been believed in the community, but another bearded man of south Asian descent.
In this excerpt we discover a very important piece of information. Ben Abdallah thought that the man who had intervened in the incident had been a bearded man of south Asian descent. Specifically, Ben Abdallah thought it was a Mr Tahir of the local vicinity but he was mistaken – and this site has previously covered Mr Tahir’s denial. It was this denial that, as the author reckoned, at least, caused a little confusion and threatened to make Ben Abdallah look slightly wobbly as a witness – but the discovery of the Independent’s reportage has cleared everything up: Ben Abdallah saw a bearded man with Asian appearance taking on the attacker. He might have gone on to misidentify this man, but it doesn’t change the fact that he saw someone who wasn’t Bernard Kenny intervening in the incident.
Building on this not-insignificant piece of data, consider how at the trial of Thomas Mair, Bernard Kenny didn’t appear as a witness. He did, however, submit a Victim Personal Statement (VPS) (confirmed in the judge’s sentencing remarks – found here) which was read out – not by himself or indeed any member of his family (although it isn’t by any means a strict requirement). Instead, Bernard Kenny’s statement was read to the court by Whittam, the prosecuting lawyer.
Of the statement itself, the author can find little detail (here is some), and it would be very useful to know about the content (this is why it is withheld, one suspects). For it would appear that VPSs don’t have to rely on any facts. They deal with how a person perceives himself to be a victim of a crime. Note that Bernard Carter Kenny didn’t feel impacted upon enough to actually attend court himself, and arguably, such proxy representation for “Bernard Kenny” in court would mean fewer-to-no repercussions for any Bernard Kenny who wasn’t after all the Bernard Kenny who was involved in the Jo Cox affair.
Interestingly, the official excuse for Kenny’s absence apears to have been “not well enough to attend”. And perhaps the exact reason for Kenny’s illness was revealed in his statement – at least as far as the corporate-media reported it:
Mr Kenny said the knife had sliced into his liver, causing more damage than originally thought and that he found it hard to think about “how close to death I had come”.
A liver more badly damaged than first thought? Well, we were told, were we not, that Mair had plunged a 17/18cm blade into Kenny’s stomach “almost to the hilt”? Should we think it strange, then, that Bernard Kenny was well enough to be discharged from hospital 4 days after the incident, and – looking fighting fit in the photographs – lay flowers at a local rugby game a mere 10 days after the incident, but not be well enough to attend a trial – a murder trial to boot – many months later? But then again, on the day, the police didn’t seem too impressed with any wounding received by Bernard Kenny, as the following reportage demonstrates (emphasis added):
The temporary chief constable of West Yorkshire police, Dee Collins, said there was a large, ongoing investigation, with heightened visibility patrols in the area. She added that weapons had been retrieved from the scene, including a firearm.
At the press conference announcing Cox’s death, Collins said: “Jo was attacked by a man who inflicted serious and sadly, ultimately fatal injuries. Subsequently there was a further attack on a 77-year-old man nearby who has sustained injuries that are non-life threatening.
All this begs a question that really needs to be asked (so, not just out of passing interest); what was the the first instance in the corporate-media of Kenny being mentioned as the intervening man? The answer, at least as it appears, did not surprise the author. After much trawling of the reoportage, it appears that the identity of the have-a-go hero might first have been introduced into corporate-media coverage by none other than Clarke Rothwell – who, as we shall see, provided another positive identification of a white cap on the head of the assailant:
One of us, I think his name is Bernard, tried to intervene physically but got stabbed in the stomach, blood poured out of his wound and he fell to the ground. Everybody backed off.
Now, Clarke Rothwell featured heavily in the first article at this site (links are above). That article featured witness testimony proffered by Rothwell early on in the day of the incident: a telephone conversation with the BBC that was then transcribed to text on a webpage. It was noticed in the said article that this very early account by Rothwell didn’t include any information regarding any shout of “Britain First” – which, of course, was the main strand of the rope by which Mair was strung up in the kangaroo court of public opinion (corporate-media presiding). Now if we look at that testimony again, we will also notice that it didn’t feature any attempt to identify the man who intervened either:
“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.”
Now let’s introduce a man called Colin Frith. Colin is a dance teacher at an establishment roughly opposite the Birstall library on Market Street. He apparently had some contact with the intervening bystander, and his story about this appeared in the MailOnline. Furthermore, the MailOnline appears to be the only print media that Frith talked to because the Mirror, Telegraph, and the Sun all cite the MailOnline in their own articles about the adventures of Colin Frith. So, without further ado, after being told about the incident, Frith goes to the Sandwich & Co sandwich shop and encounters an injured person:
‘I saw a man who I didn’t know laying on the floor with his hand to his chest, he was bleeding quite a lot and his shirt was soaked in blood.
‘A number of people were around him and two girls were telling him to keep holding the wound. I ran back to my workplace to get my first aid kit.
‘Back at the cafe I lifted up the man’s shirt and could see it was a stab wound. I put any bandages I could grab as quickly around the wound which was between his rib cage and diaphragm area.
‘Me, my friend Scott and the girls told him to lie still and told him we’d take care of him.’
But within moment the seriousness of the situation became all too apparent.
He had been talking a bit and then he suddenly went into shock and started shaking and all the colour drained from him,’ Mr Frith, of nearby Birkenshaw.
‘I thought ‘Oh no he’s going to go!’ and I willed him to stay with us.
‘His wife was watching it all in the cafe. She was really upset and so worried about him.’
The thing that is very noticeable about this information, and not entirely unexpected, is that there is no description of the victim. Sure, the journalist couching the information in the article talks about a pensioner-this, and a pensioner-that, but all that Frith tells us is that “all the colour” drained from the victim. Now, it turns out that ITV did a filmed interview with Colin Frith (which can still be viewed here), and in this interview Frith was very concerned with the victim’s chest – so much so, that the viewer starts to get confused where the wound actually should have been. In fact, Frith says that when the man lifted his shirt, he couldn’t see a wound, but he could see plenty of blood – but this is further confused by Frith talking about putting pressure on the wound. In fact, the actual wellbeing of the man, at this moment in the entire incident, as a point of fact, also becomes newly confused by this interview. Frith distinctly states that the man was “sitting on his own” – so not lying prostrate on the floor, then - and that the man was reporting that he was fine, and indeed that Frith thought that he seemed alright.
The really strange thing about this witness, though, is that his twitter history shows no sign of dealing with this have-a-go hero, nor, actually, any inside information that he might have had by doing first-aid on this man. Colin Frith tweeted – not very frequently, mind – throughout the day on 16th June. Up to the point of the incident, he had been involved in a discussion about another subject entirely, but then there were four tweets that deal with the attack on Jo Cox. These are as follows:
Thoughts with Jo and the gentleman who got stabbed outside work today! #crazyworldwelivein #Birstall
@BBCLookNorth spare a thought for the man who got stabbed because he went to intervene! #Birstall
RIP #jocox What is this world coming to? #birstall
@SkyNews @BBCBreaking does anyone have any info on the second victim? #birstall
What is to be made of the fact that there is no mention in these tweets of any encounter with the man who had intervened in the attack on Jo Cox? It looks to the author as if Frith is merely responding to basic information – stuff that he might only have heard reports of. The last tweet is interesting – it could be an enquiry as to the health of the individual (and this could suggest – albeit very weakly – that there had been engagement in the event), but there is still no statement of any special interest, though.
On the 17th June, Frith tweeted about the memorial held in Birstall that day – again, like a spectator.
On the morning of 18th June, Frith retweeted an article about the identity of the intervening man – Bernard Kenny.
Well done Bernard!
So, the first time that Frith talks about the identity of the man is after it has become common knowledge.
Much later on in the same day, Frith posts this:
Still feeling perplexed.
Still feeling perplexed? It would be nice to enquire, instead of having a jolly good guess, as to why Frith isn’t completely happy, but I fully suspect that if anyone approaches this gentleman with questions, they will soon be getting a visit from police to warn them off. I categorically do not encourage it.
Before we wrap this dose of analysis up, there is one more moment of confluence between Rothwell’s first testimony and that of Ben Abdallah’s to deal with. Please consider the following extract:
Mr Rothwell said: “He ran past the Tesco Express and I jumped in my van to try and follow him and maybe knock him over. He threw off his black puffer jacket as he ran away.”
This is interesting. Our other witness, Ben Abdullah, reported that he was told that the attacker had run down the “steps of Tesco” (please see “Thomas Mair: all by himself?” on this site for further details). So, is Rothwell also saying the same thing? Given that Rothwell seemingly attempted to followe the attacker, it is reasonable to assume that he did witness the route of escape. And this would be the third point of basic agreement of fact between Rothwell’s raw account and Ben Abdullah’s story: 1) the white cap, 2) the intervention by a passer-by, 3) the attacker escaping down the “steps of Tesco”.
If the man who attacked Jo Cox escaped by way of the Tesco Express on Smithies Lane, then he couldn’t be the man that appears in CCTV footage reaching the end of Market Street and who police say is Thomas Mair (this character is not wearing a “bobble jacket” either). In fact, given that the attacker went down Union Street (as Rothwell also reports) it would make better sense for him to have taken this Tesco shortcut. The only benefit of going all the way down Market Street would be to get caught on CCTV fleeing the supposed crime – and who would actually benefit from that?
This provides a nice segue to the next – and final – point. As the reader may well know, the actual attack itself was supposedly caught on CCTV, and therefore CCTV supposedly caught Mair perpetrating the crime. So, we’ll next examine what some court reporting had to say about that.
COURT 8 of the Old Bailey sat in shocked silence as CCTV footage from the bottom of Market Street showed Thomas Mair’s attack on Jo Cox.
After the silver Astra driven by Fazila Aswat comes up the street from Bradford Road, they find a parking space just before the library.
Although the incident is in the distance, Mair can be seen crossing the road from the Vape Lounge where he had been lurking since noon on Thursday, June 16.
After what seems to be a coming together of Mair with the group of women, he can be seen on top of Mrs Cox before breaking into a brief jog down and across Market Street. He stops suddenly in the middle of the road, then returns to attack Mrs Cox again, this time between the two cars, before finally walking off more calmly this time.
There are a few points of order to be mentioned about this footage and the reporting of it; these are going to feature in a later article. In the meantime, please notice that whoever described this CCTV footage as played to the court, they did not mention any intervention by a bystander. Furthermore, when we look at the footage released by West Yorks Police purporting to show Mair making his escape (which must be of the same stock and taken from the same perspective and location as that described in court), there is no visible sign of another man injured – no one lying prostrate in the road, for instance. And on top of that, the author has looked for trial reportage in corporate-media in which Jo Cox’s political assistants, Fazila Aswat (Jo Cox’s manager and daughter of a former Labour Party councillor) and Sandra Major (Jo Cox’s senior case worker), who had been in the car with her, mention any intervention. None can be found.
What these two women are said to have done at the trial, however, is talk about the attacker wearing a black hat. This hasn’t been reported in main stream media – and the reader would probably appreciate the reason as to why– but nevertheless, we have had other information that is independent of the trail that verifies this story. The women describe a man in a black hat, fail to mention any intervention, but talk about the attacker making political statements – this is the second version of events. We’ll deal with all this in another article.
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.