This site is a back-up for the main site at frombehindenemylines.org.uk
The incident at London Bridge and then Borough Market is definitely not what it seems. Firstly, there may well not have been time for the terrorists to do everything they are supposed to have done. It’s not just a case of making a central act of terror fit into an 8 minute time frame, but also having to account for peripheral incidents that happened elsewhere that have been attributed to the same terrorists. Logically, there may well have had to be additional personnel involved – and it begins to look like this is borne out in the evidence.
The range of peripheral events makes the author wonder if the central act of terror, and the police response to it, was in fact cover for something else – another operation that would involve the use of firearms? Even if it wasn’t, the least we can say is that there are sure signs that the core terror issue was something that was in part engineered by powers other than supposed home-spun terrorists – we only have to look at the way that police actively created panic, and apparently worked to populate the general area in which the core terror took place with concerned, anxious and frightened citizenry. To what extent this engineering develops into fully fledged hoaxery cannot be judged, and while it appears to be a fact that there were injuries sustained enough in some people to cause death, there are also some strange tales of uncontested victimhood coming from people who had contact with the terrorists. In general, the author is very perplexed – and astonished – that what is essentially an entire town centre (Southwark), full of Saturday night drinkers, couldn’t deal with three men with knives.
We’ll start this analysis by examining the following passage because of the way it naturally leads into the discussion:
At least two people have been killed and and multiple people are injured in a terrorist “rampage” at two central London landmarks.
London Bridge and Borough Market have been hit in what appears to be two coordinated attacks south of the River Thames. A separate incident at Vauxhall is not connected, police have said.
This extract comes from a saved copy of the Telegraph live update page, but it doesn’t appear on the current version. The author speculates that the initial prognosis of two coordinated attacks would spoil the official narrative. Notice the very early insistence that an incident in Vauxhall is not related. What appears to have been an arrest in connection with that incident was covered in the previous article at FBEL (here). The author thinks that it is connected with whatever happened in Borough Market in the wider sense†.
We shouldn’t examine previous State Crime without applying the lessons learned to potential new cases. It was previously postulated in these pages that the Westminster Bridge attack was an operation split in two: somebody drove the 4×4, and somebody else did the knife attack. When the above passage speaks of two coordinated attacks, these are the components it is referring to. If the attack by white-van-ploughing-into-pedestrians was separate to a flurry of knifings, then the assailants with blades didn’t need to originate in the scene of the crime from the van. In fact, given the time scales, the author suggests they might not have.
However, at least one witness (and bear in mind, witnesses are rarely reliable – even if they are named, which isn’t the case here), reports that the knife attackers were associated with the van because the Guardian reports this:
Three suspects jumped out of the back door, running towards Borough Market stabbing anyone who got in their way and attacking people in bars and restaurants. Witnesses described desperately throwing bottles and chairs at the attackers in an attempt to stop them.
Witnesses report seeing attackers stabbing people along Stoney Street near the restaurants Brindisa, El Pastor, Roast and Black & Blue.
Note the list of restaurants – we’ll be looking at those shortly. That the terrorists exited from the back of the van could be a complete fairy tale, but notice that it implies at least another person in the vehicle – a driver. Why would a driver exit from the back of a van? If the story is true then there is at least one other person who is unaccounted for in the official narrative and who could be involved.
But let’s stick with the official narrative, and trace the movements of the three attackers as they went about their grisly business. When one looks at the trail of interaction between the attackers and property (and the people in it), it goes south along Stoney Street having first entered into that road via Rochester Walk. Apparently, the quickest way, according to GoogleMaps, to get from the abandoned van to Rochester Walk is under the railway and through the Borough Market. Apparently, killing started in this undercover mall – one report specifies the Brindisa tapas shop - so let us assume that this is the way that the attackers went.
First up is the Black and Blue restaurant on Rochester Walk:
Jamie, a witness who was in a restaurant on Rochester Walk near London Bridge, told the Press Association: “We were in the Black and Blue restaurant, we heard a fight and everyone got up and everyone rushed out of the restaurant and we heard a massive, massive bang. “Then we hid under the table and people came into the restaurant and knocked a bunch of stuff over, like the till.
“And then we ran into the restaurant into the kitchen, where there was a bunch of other people and a guy had been stabbed and he was cut and he was bleeding quite a lot.”
He added that they waited in the kitchen for “quite a while” before they were evacuated.
A female companion said: “We were in the restaurant and we just saw three guys come into the restaurant, stabbed someone in the face and someone in the stomach.
“One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant, I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid.”
Next is Eliot’s café – or maybe not. The named victim’s shift as a waitress was over, and it’s not clear if this attack didn’t actually happen at another restaurant:
A waitress at neighbouring Elliot’s cafe is ruthlessly stabbed when the attackers enter. Australian Candice Hedge, 31, had finished her shift and was having a drink with her boyfriend, when one of the terrorists is believed to have grabbed her head from behind and stabbed her in the neck. Others inside rush to the back and attempt to crouch and hide.
The attackers also called in at the El Pastor Mexican restaurant, which is next door to the Market Porter.
[A] worker at Borough Market, Alex Martinez, told Fairfax Media he was working behind the bar when a man holding a knife entered the restaurant and started screaming.
Mr Martinez, who works at the El Pastor restaurant, said he knew it was terrorism straight away.
“I saw that man with a knife in the hand, and after the man started screaming,” he said.
There is also this account:
The attackers then head for Mexican restaurant El Pastor. “One man entered the restaurant armed with a knife, about a foot long, and stabbed a lady who was in the restaurant – maybe a waitress,” recalls an eyewitness. He [the witness], along with others, then begin to fight back, throwing “bottles and chairs at the man armed with a knife to try and stop him.”
At the end of the trail is the Wheatsheaf pub outside of which the attackers are gunned down.
The reader might have noticed it; above is a map which gives the timings by Google for walking this route: 3 minutes. Look at the map below – something prepared by the MailOnline – which tells of 8 minutes between the terror suspects leaving the van and getting shot. Is it possible? The reader really needs to make up his or her own mind without being told. Remember, the suspects were meant to have ran when they first exited the van, but other parts of the media remind us of the calculated way that they moved steadily along Stoney Street (there is footage by the Daily Express to prove it).
As mentioned above, there was an incident in Vauxhall where the police may or may not have made an arrest – in the last article hereabouts an image published in the Sun was connected to that incident (through the Sun’s coverage), and a separate video of an arrest was also linked to the same incident. In actual fact, now that the author has more information, the video could be of the following [also see the update at the foot of the page]:
London resident Neal Tate told Fairfax Media that he saw at least two men being arrested on Borough High Street, not far from Borough Market.
He said he saw riot police push the men, who he estimated to be aged in their mid 20s, up against a shuttered shop front.
The police were yelling at the men, who were being very compliant, Mr Tate said.
“At a glimpse, I would have said they were wearing black, kind of sports wear-ish tops. Average height, youngish men, slender frame,” he said.
Here is another version of Neal Tate’s account:
Neal Tate said he saw two or three young men in their 20s being arrested in Borough High Street. He told reporters he was walking around the back of Guy’s Hospital when he saw police cordons closing the streets off.
I found myself in an alleyway trying to get through to Borough High Street and then I found myself behind a civilian car with loads of police vans there.
Suddenly there was an arrest being made – two, maybe three guys being pushed up against the shutters of a shop.
The police were shouting at them and they were being very compliant.
The police to me looked like regular riot police. They didn’t seem like the armed tactical group.
As it happens, Borough High Street is where something completely different, but not unrelated to the overall event, was going on at the same time:
Armed police raid The Blue Eyed Maid in Borough high street at London Bridge following a terrorist incident.
Could this have anything to do with the happenings seen by Neal Tate? Maybe not, because the police involved, if the reader would follow the link, are wearing an armyesque uniform and look like they are about to go to war in Syria.
It's possible that these police are the ones in a video that is gaining quite the reputation on Youtube showing cops changing uniforms. The author suggests that these could be they - police have been known to turn up at a scene and change into riot gear. If this is the case, then this activity must be later on, because the video had a timestamp of 0033 Hours - and also notice that the police cordon has been established. In any case, this image could still yet be showing another sub-operation - but more information is required].
So, what on earth took place at the Blue Eyed Maid that justified all this attention? It’s well off the beaten path for the Borough Market 3-man-brick.
And the same can be said for another place which apparently saw a terrorist attack – at least that is the implication made here:
Casualties were seen being taken away from Tito’s restaurant on London Bridge Street with blood on the steps of the eatery.
Look at the map directly above. London Bridge street is on the other side of Borough High Street from the Market, and in terms of the paltry time allowed the boys at Borough Market to run rampage, it is completely way out of their range.
These further flung incidents tell us that there was more stuff happening than the core terrorism in Borough Market. And there is one piece of witness testimony that tells us that there was definitely more than 3 assailants in the area:
An eye-witness who was standing with his wife at the entrance of London Bridge underground station [on Borough High Street] described the attacker and how he “coldly” attacked a man.
He said: “We saw people running away and then I saw a man with quite a large blade, at least 10-inches, stabbing a man three times.
“He was stabbing him quite coldly, and then the victim slumped to the ground.”
Describing the attacker, he added: “I think he was black, dark-skinned, red tracksuit on, with a red hoodie.
“He walked quite boldly along with another guy in the direction of the Southwark Tavern pub [near southern end of Stoney Street].
This eyewitness has been named as Ben, married to a Natalie, and he has been quoted extensively in corporate-media. Crucially, he saw that one of the attackers was wearing a red tracksuit, with hoodie, and who must have been progressing down Borough High Street to the bottom end of Stoney Street. Thus, he was a fourth attacker because the other three were not wearing red. We know this from the footage that the Express handily released (click on to enlarge):
There is yet more evidence of other happenings on the night of the 3rd June. The reader needs to consider how the Metropolitan Police admitted to using 50 rounds in the operation. Officially, that is 50 bullets to kill three people‡. This is not believable, and as it turns out it probably isn’t trueǂ. Look at this extract:
The [restaurant] worker, Patrick, said he saw “crazy” men enter the bustling market, which was packed with people on Saturday night, and start to attack random people with knives.
“People crazy, with their knife,” Patrick told Fairfax Media, while making a stabbing motion with his hand.
Patrick, who works at Porteña, an Argentinian street food restaurant in Borough Market, said he saw three people get stabbed, before a gunfight broke out between police and the offenders.
“Our door has holes, so the police went in one corner, and the guys went in another corner,” he said, and made a firing motion to describe what had happened. Patrick collected what appeared to be bullet casings from the ground afterwards.
And so this witness appears to tell of a gun fight happening in the Borough Market. Does it sound crazy? Look at this:
Brindisa tapas restaurant is next in the terrorists’ sights. It is while they stab customers and staff inside that armed police arrive and fire shots.
This snippet is from the Mirror, and it is part of an account of the original three suspect’s movements. Thus it is claiming that they were shot at well before they met their final curtain outside the Wheatsheaf. In the light of this information, are we really to believe what we are seeing in that Express footage that shows them walking nonchalantly to their deaths in Stoney Street? Or were the people who the police were shooting at in the Borough Market the same as the ones in the footage? What the author is sure of as a certain possibility is that the police went through 50 rounds in different incidents – not just despatching the 3 suspects we know about.
Perhaps the most disgusting thing about the operation that took place on the 3rd June was the part that police played in it to introduce dismay and fear into the public. In the last article hereabouts the author wrote about the police storming a bar to warn the punters in it about being shot (they got them to hide under the table). The bar was obviously underground, and the author has since identified it as Katzenjammers – a cellar bar. People in that place could not suffer collateral injury by material flying in through the windows – because it was underground. If armed police stayed on the door, an assailant couldn’t enter. And so, what we saw the police doing was inducing panic – without a doubt.
Furthermore, after discovering that police has stopped a bus and emptied it out so that there were even more distressed people wandering on foot through the vicinity (see the update to in the previous article), the author also found this:
Officers were seen dragging startled diners and revellers out of restaurants and bars and telling them to run.
The author would humbly like to suggest that police should have encouraged people to remain put in any establishment, and have the management of the same lock up until the crisis had passed. For some reason, the police wanted frightened and discombobulated people on the streets.
Now read this:
Owen Evans, 39, was in the Wheatsheaf pub on Stoney Street near Borough Market on Saturday night, with friends, when shooting broke out nearby:
I was in the back of the pub. A wave of about 30 people ran in and tried to get into the cellar or cupboard. Then there were shots outside. They didn’t seem real – like a kid letting off firecrackers. We saw police lights and everyone got down under a table. People turned tables over.
We waited about 10 minutes or so, with several shots every couple of minutes. Someone at the front of the pub had been shot [this is probably the bystander who got hit in the head – see the previous article] – it’s speculation but we thought it was by accident, there were bullet holes in the windows.
The people near the person called for a medic, shouting: ‘He’s f***ing bleeding to death, we need a doctor.’ The bar staff were amazing, I think they locked the door so no one got in.
Then they told us to leave the pub and to run, and a policeman standing outside with a gun was shouting, ‘Go, get the f*** out.’ We ran down the street, turned left at the Market Porter, than ran down the road and away. We got to the South Bank and then waited ages for a tube, and eventually got home.
Leaving aside the fact that the tube station may well have been locked down by police, what we have here is the police chasing people out of a secure location. If the incident was by then over, then there was no need for the crowd in the pub to be exhorted to “flee for their lives”. Obviously, whatever the stage the incident was at, the intent was to fill the streets with panicking people.
And that smacks of engineering the locality to create a certain impression that can then be soaked up by reporting corporate-media – to be transferred into homes around the nation. In short, we’re getting into hoax territory, because a false flag is organic whatever else it is.
Bearing this in mind, please read the following extract:
Survivor Daniel O’Neill, 23, was standing outside a bar when one of the killers plunged a knife into him.
His mum Elizabeth told BBC News: “He had just stepped outside the bar for a second and a man ran up to him and said ‘this is for my family, this is for Islam’ and put a knife in him.”
Isn’t this so odd? Didn’t Daniel O’Neill want to do anything to avoid having a knife plunged into him (like some block of cheese) while his potential killer orated at him? Isn’t it rather unlucky that the second that Daniel O’Neill chose to step outside the bar was the same one in which the killer ran up to him, gave him a speech, and then plunged a knife into him?
Well, the reader must decide for him or herself. To the author the whole thing looks like an intelligence stand down – at least – meaning that the UK’s security services let plotters go ahead with an attack. Naturally, this would mean foreknowledge, and therefore an opportunity to introduce an engineered effect from the event that would 1) contribute to an already over-stimulated national emotional reaction to a perceived threat of terror, and reinforce the casus belli: stuff that false-flags are always about, and 2) perhaps to cover something else going on. Regarding that, the reader may have noticed that Qatar is in the news a lot today. Could it ever have anything to do with Borough Market?
The narrator of a very good film by the Kent Freedom Movement, which can be viewed here, seems very certain that the Vauxhall incident arrest (going by the Sun) is actually being made on the London Bridge.
Additionally, the film points out that the area around the Wheatsheaf (Stoney Street) is deserted, and airs a suspicion that the death scene of the three suspects is staged – although it isn’t actually filmed – after the area has been cleared of real people; the reader of these pages will recognise this as standard. The emptiness of the Express footage of the suspects walking towards this moment was commented on in the previous article, and the author did notice that Gabriele Sciotto’s now iconic image of the beer-can man didn’t appear on the Telegraph Live Updates pages until Picture shows man on ground with canisters strapped to him.
† As soon as the police had decided that the Vauxhall incident was not related to what was happening at Market Borough, they also maintained that it was a major incident; in fact a stabbing (so at least related in terms of the mode of attack). The next day, the police had backpeddled completely. Now the Vauxhall thing was not a stabbing. The Metropolitan Police cannot be so incompetent.
‡ Except the bullet that hit the American “bystander” in the head. There is not enough information about this substory that now becomes incredibly suspicious. An eye needs to be kept on it as it resolves (although we probably won’t hear any more about).
ǂ A large area of the south side of London Bridge was still cordoned off on Monday morning. What could have been taking the police so long? A thorough investigation, or a clean up? While looking into this, the author discovered that the area where the main terror event took place is riddled with PR agencies. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
Alternative headlines could have been “UKIP spoils terror cherry on top: refuses to halt GE campaigning” or “Terrorists pick soft target; would have got a kicking on a Saturday night in the Midlands or the North”.
And obviously this sort of response looks inappropriate because it’s not the Government-prescribed politically correct way to react. One should “Run, Hide, Tell”† – which is the actual official Metropolitan Police advice to people who are faced with losers who think beer cans strapped to their belts would pass as suicide vests (see below) – then hold a mass candlelight vigil if you were lucky enough not to be picked off in the melee of fleeing prey, and then acquiesce when election campaigning is cancelled, and lastly, thoroughly approve when the election is postponed indefinitely altogether. That’s the way a slave behaves.
Well, the author thinks that the dead can be honoured in a much better way by more resolve and less fainting. The latter is the game the way that the Establishment wants it played – and that way all ends in catastrophe. The dead of “terror” that the British Government, by years of social engineering at home and regime change abroad, is ultimately responsible for, and any other people who become a victim of it, are better served by our stopping it from happening – our fighting back. It is clearly evident, up and down the whole Islamic terror phenomenon, that the British Government would rather have us surrender instead. We should know this just by taking a look at the imagery and the information that came off the streets of London city centre yesterday (to be discussed momentarily). And why would they want surrender? The answer: so that nothing is done; so that the body count can keep stacking up, so that people are ever more cowed. The desired end game is total police state security apparatus, and carte blanche for meddling in foreign countries without real legal authority to do so.
What is the impression that we have of the attack in London? Is it stabbing victims lying in pools of blood? Is it of a van ploughing through crowds of “revellers”? Is it of identikit terror to be blamed vaguely on ISIS? No, not really. We haven’t seen imagery to give us that notion. The overall impression is of storm troopers stomping all over the norms by which the public usually impart consent to be policed. The feeling we get from the night’s activity (as we go through these, please check out the corresponding footnote for the source) is of the police humiliating innocent people by making them put their hands on their heads as if they had been made to surrender by force of arms, storming into bars (one that appears to be in a cellar, and presumably safe from “crossfire” from assailants with knives), frightening folk and making them panic, demanding that they get off the streets for no other reason that police don’t want to be filmed. It is of police letting off weapons indiscriminately so that they actually hit bystanders. It is of police, dressed in military uniforms, throwing their weight around. It doesn’t matter if these attacks in London last night were real, or a false flag – they presented an opportunity for exploitation. And, to press the point home, while the UK Government does nothing to effectively deal with the prospect of terror, such incidents will be used to condition people, one degree at a time, to behave in a reflexively submissive and incarcerated way: to yield unquestioningly to the authoritarian command at the end of a gun barrel. And this is what we fight back against.
Of overarching concern for all libertarian or classically liberal minded people who are fixing on having this fight back should be the way that police can apparently shoot dead criminal suspects on the street. If people are frightened that the authorities might kill us no questions asked, and be able to justify their actions with only their unchallenged accusations, then people are surely more susceptible to the conditioning just mentioned.
Admittedly, the killings by police, as they in appear in this particular story, start to become riddled with anomaly and a little bit of the preposterousness that is always a faithful sign of a false flag. That being said, let’s assume that three terror suspects were shot dead, as the corporate-media appears to be reporting this morning.
Witness, Gabriele Sciotto, told of how he saw three men being grounded by police firearms officers. He commented on what media started to gingerly tout as being a suicide vest.
Describing what appeared to be canisters strapped to the man’s chest, he said: “The first sight I thought it wasn’t anything real, it didn’t look real to me but I’m not like the person who could honestly say if they were real or not because I have no experience.
“They looked like just a toy to me.”
Indeed, these canisters shouldn’t really have fooled anyone with a pair of eyes – they immediately struck the author as being empty beer cans. Something else struck the author too: if there was one sure fire way of making certain these “terrorists” would get themselves shot (and apparently all three suspects were wearing these toy vests), it was to pretend to be a suicide bomber. Why did it not register that wearing these things would have reduced the span of the operation – i.e. they would have been dead sooner? And here is a question to consider. Why was it that these suspects were wearing what one could essentially call exercise, or drill props? What else about them was also pretend?
The reader might understand the gist of what the author is thinking of when he or she considers the following evidence. The first piece is a caption from a MailOnline story:
A man said to be one of the terrorists has been pictured after being shot by police outside the Borough Market pub. Witnesses said he was still alive
Strangely enough, the author can no longer find the article by using a search phrase comprising of the exact caption quote – meaning the Mail have probably altered it in the current version (and indeed they have – see here). Secondly, UK corporate-media previously reported the following about Gabriele Sciotto and how he described the state of the suspects after the shooting:
Speaking to The Guardian, the 25-year-old, said: “I could see one of them moving still. There was blood. I could see the police were scared.”
At the time of writing the above quote could only be found in Australian publications. And so it begins to appear like any mention of any of the suspects remaining alive after the incident has been scrubbed from the British internet.
There is one last very noteworthy thing to cover, and that is the arrest of someone in the Vauxhall area. Now, police said that this had nothing to do with the terror attacks, but all the same they were extremely heavy handed – and they did NOT want anyone filming them making the arrest. The reader can see the foam-flecked, inferiority-complex driven raging disapproval of masked police with shields in the footage under footnote 3. Another perspective of the incident seems to be shown in another film (to be found here), and again, police are pretty frenzied in their not wanting people to see it.
What could possibly be so secret, and yet need so much yelling and screaming, and hissing and squealing from grown men? Well, take a look for yourself. The Sun published an image (above) of an arrested man, and from this accompanying text “It was first thought that he was scooped in Vauxhall” we are led to believe that this could be related to the arrest that police were under great pains to prevent anyone witnessing. He looks Caucasian.
† The American version of this is Run, Hide, Fight.
These images are quite self-explanatory.
Please view this film:
Image taken from:
Note, this story was also being reported in the MailOnline quite early on into the incident.
‘I think he’s dead’ Witness claims bystander ‘shot in head’ as cops fired at terrorists
There have been developments in the Salman Abedi story – and they are mostly preposterous. The serious news is all in Libya, and we’ll get to that after the farce.
First up are the two pictures released by the authorities of someone – purportedly Abedi – surrounded by blackness (one of which is here shown on the right). The author understands from reading around the images that Abedi is meant to be in a lift on his way to slaughtering the children, but he has been taken out of context in order not to hurt feelings or offend. Is it good enough? No, not in the slightest – not in the land of due process, and not when the British Government has been caught banged to rights in the act of committing state crime. The author suggests an alternative reason for blacking out Abedi’s surroundings: so that people who would have been in the picture don’t recognise themselves, and come forward to explain that they weren’t anywhere near the Manchester Arena on the 22nd May. Note in these “Abedi in space” images, the suspect is meant to be wearing a type of rucksack (pictured here) that has a high back that should appear above his neck. The reader can decide for him or herself if they think such a thing is visible in the image.
Secondly, police have also released a new image of someone they say is the Manchester Arena bomber with a huge blue luggage piece that they are calling a “suitcase”. Their motives for doing this were retailed by the Manchester Evening News as follows:
Police are trying to understand why Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi repeatedly visited Wilmslow Road with a blue suitcase.
A senior counter-terror officer revealed their focus on the busy south Manchester route as one of several new threads of the investigation into the atrocity last week.
The author submits that this piece of Public Relations is nothing to do with any investigation, and everything to do with tying up loose ends from the alternate reality that the British Government let loose before its narrative was completely undermined by other details published by US media. The reader should look at the previous articles hereabouts for full coverage of this topic, but to give a brief explanation: the Times newspaper claimed that it had seen CCTV footage of Abedi using a “suitcase bomb”. The following is the Independent’s account. Read it carefully:
Abedi used a suitcase bomb packed with homemade explosives and nails for the attack – the same method used for Isis’ bombings at Brussels Airport and Molenbeek metro station last year.
CCTV footage seen by The Times showed the 22-year-old putting the suitcase down in the foyer between Manchester Arena and Victoria station shortly before it detonated amid Ariana Grande fans pouring out of the concert.
The extract clearly states that the suitcase – meaning the bomb in it – detonated. However, a revised version of events, after intelligence shared with the US was leaked into the public domain, had it that the bomb had been in a Karrimor rucksack. Obviously, this presented a problem for the British authorities, because it introduced a risk that even the most naïve and meek of British subjects would become suspicious and start wondering why people who were supposedly beyond reproach would lie about the facts of such a distressing case. And so what the British authorities have done to solve their problem is present something to assuage the public cognitive dissonance. The production of a picture of “Abedi with suitcase” is meant to address the puzzlement that two contradicting bomb delivery narratives must have produced in anyone who was trying to reconcile them. Certainly there is a reliance, when trying to pull this sort of thing off, on the public not remembering data correctly – but then the public are very reliable in these regards. And so it doesn’t matter if there is, in actuality, no relation whatsoever between the bombing and the image of “Abedi with suitcase”. All that matters is that the public are allowed to forge an association, and that association will explain why anyone will have ever encountered the concept of “Abedi with suitcase”.
So, what to make of the image in the light of its use as psychology in order to fix a mistake? There are several areas of discussion, including the actuality of Abedi being watched before the incident – in spite of what the intelligence agencies and police say. One that we shouldn’t rule out is that the image was created to order after the event. Yes, that has a certain ramification that may be hard to digest. But look at this:
The remains of suicide bomber Salman Abedi will never be cremated or buried in Greater Manchester as authorities battle to keep the killer’s body separate to those 22 victims of his attack .
Abedi’s remains are currently being kept at a morgue outside of the Greater Manchester area, according to the Manchester Evening News .
Abedi’s body is understood to be the property of the coroner.
Inquest hearings could be held in due course, and any ultimate decision regarding his remains will be down to a coroner, the source said.
This idea of separation between Abedi and the victims is obviously just a cover story because the author can only identify 8 victims of the 22 dead (from the list here) as being from Greater Manchester (including Bolton). And this cover story would be to rationalise, and normalise, how the government would get to keep the remains of “Abedi” and ultimately decide how to dispose of them. The author’s suspicion, first voiced in a previous article on this subject, that Abedi wasn’t even at the scene of the crime does not dissipate.
Now on to the really interesting news. An article in an African publication suggests that the arrest of Salman Abedi’s father in Tripoli was partly responsible for kicking off a huge clash between Libyan militias.
When suicide bomber Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old British-Libyan, triggered his bomb packed with nuts and bolts Monday in Manchester, he not only brought Libya’s civil war to the streets of Britain, he may well have wrecked the chances of a peace deal being struck between rival governments and their militia backers in the strife-torn North African state.
First of all, let’s look at why this might be feasible. What we do know for certain is that Salman Abedi’s father, Ramadan, was…
an administrative manager of the Central Security Force in the Libyan capital, was detained separately by security forces in the city, on suspicion of having links to the Islamic State group.
What the British corporate-media (source) never tells us is that the Central Security Force is also known as the Nawasi brigade – basically, the National Transitional Council (NTC), after it was gifted the nation in 2011 by the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, the SAS and MI6 – amongst others – gave out fiefdoms to allied militias who had fought the Gaddafi government forces. The Nawasi brigade are a Salafist-led group, and Salafism is likened to Wahhabism – so, it’s an extreme form of Islam. Moreover, it appears to the author, although he welcomes being corrected, that the Central Security Force is rather like an Islamic police because of how “the group mainly focuses on combating drug and alcohol related crimes, as well as other non-Islamic conduct”.
So, the Manchester Bomber’s father was/is an “administrative manager” in a Libyan Islamic enforcement police. Thanks to your tax dollars.
After the bombing in Manchester it appears that he was arrested while – or not long after – he was speaking to media and denying that his son had anything to do with the attack. He was arrested by the Special Deterrent Force, which appears to be another militia-turned-police force that seems to be more directly attached to the GNC government (explained below). The author is not clear about its authority in relation to the Central Security Force, especially when it sends “masked gunmen” to arrest a “terrorist suspect” (a UK media spin?), but if we think about it in terms of militias nabbing each other’s members then perhaps we can imagine that it might cause a lot of trouble.
Indeed, the situation in Libya is very complicated – did the reader know that even now there rages in that country the “Second Libyan Civil War”. There are essentially two governments (a third, the Government of National Accord, is a UN reconciliation project). Based in Tobruk, the House of Representatives and the Libyan National Army, led by General Haftar, are moderates (and the power that the surviving pro-Gaddafi Green Movement might yet make an alliance with). In Tripoli is the General National Congress (GNC), which is Islamist, and just declared itself the government when it didn’t like the outcome of the 2014 parliamentary elections. Both sides are fighting other factions, including a contingent of ISIS.
The significant thing about all this is that the Libyan connection became overt through the US intervention of leaked material – whereas the British were, and still are trying to make a big thing about supposed ISIS links with Abedi. This does invite suspicion that behind the leaking of the Manchester Arena bombing intelligence was a desire to create a good excuse for more fighting in Libya. Would that be something the US would be looking for? We can’t know for sure, of course. However, there is talk of the Libyan National Army receiving backing from Russia – we know Egypt is definitely on side.
On the other side, the GNC was basically the NTC during and immediately after the overthrow of Gaddafi. This transition came about basically because of an Islamist fix-up. The author wrote about it at the time, and the piece he produced is important because it notes how much the whole adventure by NATO in Libya was ultimately about handing power to the Muslim Brotherhood – a political movement that doesn’t seem to feature these days in the news at all, let alone in conjunction with Libya. But make no mistake – these Islamists in Libya were the US and UK’s men, in the same way that they were in Egypt before they were deposed in the 2013 military coup. That constituted a defeat for the Globalists, and what has happened in Syria since then looks like it will constitute another. If there is peace in Libya that is favourable to Haftar, the US neo-con, Globalist enterprise might be entirely rolled back there also.
There is a school of thought that says that one shouldn’t try too hard to lay out the evidence for a false flag attack because, largely, the public won’t even try to look at the data. It is true, and the author agrees with the sentiment. However, when one is in a war, and one does not analyse how the opponent fights the war, then a defeat is certain. In the end, whenever there is a state crime in the form of a terror event (ascribed to a scapegoated section of society for the purposes of building consensus for subsequent acts that the public wouldn’t normally tolerate), it needs to be examined for the intelligence that it imparts.
It is quite clear to the author that the Manchester Arena bombing was a state crime because:
1) the British Intelligence and security agencies (the British Government) were aware of a community of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group terrorists living in Manchester, and allowed these people to swan in and out of the country to and from war zones (where they would be an asset to the British Government in activity that assisted Britain in its stated geopolitical goals). Other evidence strongly points to the British Government being complicit in this activity – namely that the LIFG have a documented history of military alliance with the British Government as a proxy in the overthrow of Gaddafi, and other activity prior to the so-called “Libyan Civil War” (assassination attempts and other terrorism), and also ongoing efforts in Syria to overthrow Assad.
The bomber, Salman Abedi, is the son of a long-time LIFG member, who fought against the Gaddafi government in a unit called the “Manchester fighters”. This name comes from an account by a fellow combatant in an interview obtained by the Guardian (the corporate-media always have access to terrorists when the security services never seem to be able to find them) who also said
Three-quarters of the fighters at the beginning of the revolution [“Libyan Civil War”] were from Manchester – the rest came from London, Sheffield, China and Japan. From everywhere.
(Interestingly, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the infamous LIFG commander, was supposedly living in China in 2004 – recruiting?). It could not be clearer from this testimony that what happened in Libya in 2011 was something that was mostly organised from outside the country. But readers of this website would have already been aware of that.
And so, given that it is emerging that the explosive device was made by a professional bombmaker from that LIFG Manchester enclave, and that the British Government has historically been in cahoots with the LIFG, but more credibly for the purpose of making an accusation, has permitted the LIFG to reside in Manchester unmolested, the British Government is ultimately responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing through negligence.
2) With point number 1 establishing the basic fact of culpability as it could be presented to a naïve public, on another level there are problems in the narrative that indicate the bombing was an event of which Government had foreknowledge.
In the first article on this subject (links to all previous articles at the foot of the page), the author discussed something that is very noticeable about an event like Manchester, and how there is a disconnect between what the Government’s liason with the public communicates, and what happens on the ground – as though there is a script – and if things go slightly differently in the field, the public will still, in an official narrative, receive the script.
Since then the author has discovered an article by Paul Craig Roberts: “Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations”. This is an extract:
Years ago James Jesus Angleton [chief of CIA Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975] left me with the impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been prepared in advance.
So let’s modify the idea previously stated. There’s not one script, but many to choose from – and so let’s suppose that if anything goes slightly awry in the field, then the script that best fits is picked. The important thing is, there may be some wriggle room at first, but as soon as a script is fixed on, any evidence that occurs thereafter to counter it is completely ignored. Now, Roberts argues that the US intervention with the leaking of intelligence from the scene was an attempt to steer which script to go with – and the author agrees with this.
But this was a problem for the British Government, hence why it was so very angry at the US meddling. The British Government were going to establish a different storyline – and we can see that they were by the early reporting.
It is arguable that British Government were fixing to blame the Manchester Arena bombing on a lone wolf spontaneous jihadi character, using a homemade bomb, with links to ISIS by which he was radicalised. This is certainly suggested by the ludicrous booklet presented to photographers outside the home of Abedi, as discussed in the previous article at FBEL on this subject, which implied that the suspect was teaching himself about chemicals needed to make a bomb. And this narrative of a lone bomber would fit in with attacks, and attempted attacks that immediately preceded Manchester – namely the Westminster incidents. As it happens, the British Government is still pushing the idea that the bomber has links with ISIS when the more substantial relationship is with the LIFG, and events in Libya – and this would indicate that the Government’s intention is to exploit the bombing to escalate against Assad.
The story of how the US intervention sealed the course of the narrative is in the “real-time”, completely out in the open, changing of some of the elements of the narrative – changes that were very awkward and revelatory in terms of process. The first thing to notice was the tentativeness with which the British Government approached the issue of identifying the bomber. As discussed previously in these pages, it appears the US intervention forced the Government’s hands when American news not only announced the bombers identity, but also stated that it was known because of a banking card fond on his body. So, the US intervention steered the narrative right from a crucial moment at the start with the identification of the culprit.
And then we saw some details about the incident, that corporate-media had been attempting to institute as facts, disappear down the “memory hole”. The first example of this is the appearance of the bomber. There was an initial a report in various corporate-media that a mother collecting her daughter had “seen the bomber”. He was wearing a bright red top. The updated information about the appearance of the bomber is that he was wearing dark clothes:
The Arndale pictures show a man dressed in dark clothing, wearing a hoodie and baseball cap and distinctive white trainers.
It is believed Abedi was wearing similar clothes at the time of his attack, which took place at the end of an Ariana Grande pop concert at Manchester Arena.
Just in case the reader didn’t follow that – police released a number of CCTV images of Abedi (or someone purported to be him) as he visited the Arndale Centre a few days prior to the attack, and the way he is dressed in these images is supposed to resemble his attire on the day of the bombing. Crucially, these CCTV images are supposed to show that he bought a rucksack – the one used in the bombing, no less.
This brings us to a second alteration in the story (and please see the previous articles for the links to the source material) which is how the transporting receptacle for the bomb was, in the final analysis, a rucksack, and not a suitcase – as had been reported in all seriousness. Now, this stuff is very important to consider. It was said that the Times had seen CCTV footage that showed Abedi placing a suitcase down at the scene. After that we had the US intervention, and one of the pieces of information leaked was a picture of a raggedy piece of Karimor rucksack. This image was one of many “crime scene photographs… leaked to the New York Times after being shared with US intelligence, prompting a furious response among ministers” (source). Of course the British Government would be furious because now its supposed newspaper of record, its flagship sleeve for an intelligence arm into controlling the knowledge of current affairs and its received perception, the Times, is completely discredited – if only people would notice. This incident means that we cannot trust government when it says it has CCTV of a terror incident, but won’t show it. This incident forever after means that any unseen CCTV that is claimed as evidence for a terror incident probably doesn’t contain what government says it does, or it doesn’t exist.
Furthermore, we should notice that this CCTV information appeared after the revelation of the rucksack. And so what we can suggest has happened is that the US intervention has produced a storyline of bomber goes rucksack shopping. The purpose of this would be to give the public a hook and eye to link the suspect with the incident (and how many times have we seen this tactic?). But look at the figure in the photos. Is there any way that a member of the public could tell that this was Salman Abedi? And notice that there are no timestamps. These images could have been produced after the event – and more importantly, after the US had produced the intruding intelligence.
Finally, the American intelligence intervention provided evidence by which we could support the supposition made by the author in the previous articles: to wit, we shouldn’t write off the idea of Salman Abedi not even being on site when the bomb went off. Consider the following:
Photographs of bomb remnants found at the Manchester Arena show a trigger switch with a tiny circuit board soldered into the end, which experts say could point to a remote-control or timer built into the bomb to ensure an accomplice could detonate it if Abedi lost his nerve.
So, the bomb had remote-detonation capability, meaning that it only needed to be delivered to the location, and it didn’t need someone physically interacting with it to cause it to explode.
Now, consider this (source as above link):
Abedi’s upper torso was found some distance away from where the bomb went off, suggesting it was thrown forwards when the bomb went off on his back. A gap in the circle of bodies around him suggests his body shielded those directly in front of him from the worst of the blast.
An image that accompanies this text is shown below:
Notice that it has Abedi being flung through the doors that separate the exit area from the concourse. There are pictures of these doors in the first article on this subject. Please have a look, and see if you think they would open if hit by a flying torso, or – if they were being held open by people coming through them – would they give enough room for a flying torso to get through the gaps?
Essentially, what this graphic is saying is that the body of the bomber isn’t in the immediate crime scene. It has been mentioned before, but it becomes very important to know if people can access the exit zone without having a ticket to enter the concert.
What we’ve seen with this event is the same as we have seen with others that are demonstrably not what the authorities say they are. But the really important thing about this event is that, with the intervention of the US intelligence leak, we got to see the process. We saw a script being switched – which brings us to the overall point that we’ve been labouring towards. If there is script switching, then that in itself points to Government (meaning pertinent components of it) having prior knowledge of the attack. In fact, it basically means that Government is embroiled with activity related to the crime – or in other words, is directly involved in it.
At first the British Government announced that it knew who the Manchester Arena bomber was, but wanted official confirmation, and indeed, according to someone linked to Channel 4 the Greater Manchester Police said that they “won’t identify [the] Manchester suspect until formal ID [is] complete”. They also said that speculation about the bomber would be “potentially damaging to [the] investigation”. Never was the horse more bolted after the stable door had been shut, for CBS had already tweeted that it could confirm the identity of the Manchester Arena bomber. Yet more information flowed up from plentiful founts on the other side of the Atlantic, this time from NBC:
MANCHESTER, England — Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old British man believed to have killed 22 people in a suicide-bomb attack, had ties to al Qaeda and had received terrorist training abroad, a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News on Tuesday as the United Kingdom raised its terrorist threat level to the highest category.
The U.S. intelligence official, who has direct knowledge of the investigation, said Abedi, whose family is of Libyan descent, was identified by a bank card found in his pocket at the scene of the explosion after an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena. The identification was confirmed by facial recognition technology, the official said.
Abedi had traveled to Libya within the last 12 months, one of multiple countries he had visited, the official said. And while he had “clear ties to al Qaeda,” the official said, Abedi could have also had connections to other groups.
Given all the complaining going on, it would be a very good guess that all this forced the UK Government’s hand – there’s no point in speculating about the motive of the Americans – but remember, on the day after the attack, Theresa May said “the police and security services believe they know the identity of the perpetrator, but at this stage of their investigations, we cannot confirm his name”, and there was talk in the same breath in the corporate-media of a coroner’s report pending. However, it looks like Theresa May had to make do with a credit card found in Abedi’s pocket – the old stuff is the best, after all. And maybe the reason that the Government has been slow is the revelatory stuff about his links to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that the British corporate-media is now being forced to report. But before we get to that serious material, let’s have a look at some more ridiculousness that always tends to indicate state crime.
First up is the idea that the Times newspaper is the only organisation in the land supposedly outside of the security services or intelligence agencies (which of course, shows that it isn’t an organisation seperate from that realm) that can see CCTV footage of Salman Abedi delivering a suitcase bomb‡ to the target.
Abedi used a suitcase bomb packed with homemade explosives and nails for the attack – the same method used for Isis’ bombings at Brussels Airport and Molenbeek metro station last year.
CCTV footage seen by The Times showed the 22-year-old putting the suitcase down in the foyer between Manchester Arena and Victoria station shortly before it detonated amid Ariana Grande fans pouring out of the concert.
Of course, what this account doesn’t tell us is if Abedi stayed around for the bomb to go off – but why would he, when we’ve already been told by the authorities that he was killed in the explosion (and his banking details discovered)? But then again, we all know by now that just because government says something is so, it doesn’t automatically make it. It would be really handy to see Abedi deliver that bomb, because then we would know that it hadn’t already been secreted at the site well ahead of the incident. The author is thinking of the Manchester United bomb of 16th May 2016, which turned out to be a training exercise dummy, but somehow had been so expertly deployed, not found, and then “forgotten about” until it was discovered (if it had been a real bomb, this discovery would have happened with the explosion).
The next piece of nonsense to impart is the piece of evidence retrieved from Salman Abedi’s house after the police literally blew the door down to gain entry to it – derisible theatrics emanating from the maladjusted psychology of the desperate-to-justify-their-job, surely. The author doesn’t know how evidence is generally collected, but assumes that it is bagged or boxed, numbered etc. However, corporate-media cameras captured one moment when a member of police forensics was gathering one particular example of incriminating material†, and what a farce!
“Know your chemicals!” was the title of this booklet carried by this supposedly serious detective – and held in just the right way so as to make a nice photograph. The implication was obvious, and the author feels that he shouldn’t need to explain. During the Thomas Mair case, police briefed the press to bias public opinion against their supposedly innocent-until-proven-guilty suspect; now they send non-verbal signals.
Now, with the comic relief over, the author asks the reader to notice that the corporate-media is playing up supposed links between ISIS and Abedi in preference to a connection that appears to be much more substantial. Naturally, this link must be overshadowed because it is one that is very embarrassing for the British Government. The author is not going to write in detail about it, because there is an article by Tony Cartalucci at LandDestroyer that explains everything so beautifully, and what a waste of time and resources it would be to duplicate it (and not so well). Please read “UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades” (link), from which the following is taken:
Thus, astoundingly, according to the Telegraph, a thriving community of listed terrorists exists knowingly in the midst of the British public, without any intervention by the UK government, security, or intelligence agencies – with members regularly travelling abroad and participating in armed conflict and terrorist activities before apparently returning home – not only without being incarcerated, but apparently also without even being closely monitored.
The listed terrorists are the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – the al-Qaeda affiliate who the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, and the SAS and MI6 fought alongside at the start of the current decade to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya. The LIFG – a proscribed terrorist organisation – that the author was observing and writing about in real time during the Libyan fiasco so that he witnessed the close cooperation between these terrorists and a murderous NATO, and then their deployment into Syria as part of the NATO invasion-by-proxy of that country (for a sample of this writing, click on the Archive link in the menu). The nature of the relationship between the LIFG and the UK Government is perhaps best represented by the tender way that LIFG commander, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, has been treated. And so, when we discover its membership living unmolested amongst dark satanic mills, then we shouldn’t be surprised. But what it constitutes is an intelligence or security stand down – meaning the blame for the Manchester Arena attack lays firmly at the feet of the British Government.
The author has no satisfaction in seeing that the corporate-media, which at the time of the invasion of Libya basically collaborated in war crime, is now having to belatedly report a history that has very little resemblance to their current affairs of the time. Here is an example from the Daily Mail, as it finds it now has to discuss the terrorist career of Salman Abedi’s father in order to establish junior’s own credentials (a little emphasis added):
Abedi fled Tripoli in 1993 after Moammar Gadhafi’s security authorities issued an arrest warrant and eventually sought political asylum in Britain.
Now, he is the administrative manager of the Central Security force in Tripoli.
It is understood that Abedi was ‘known’ to the Security Services through his associations to those linked to terrorism in Manchester’s Libyan community.
These are said to have included 24 year-old Abdalraouf Abdallah, who was jailed for nine years after being convicted of preparing acts of terrorism and funding terrorism.
Abdallah, who is partially paralysed after being shot during the Libyan Revolution, is said to have helped men travel to Syria to fight.
Inquiries led officials at the time to believe Abedi was not of significance to that operation.
“Enquiries led officials at the time to believe Abedi was not of significance to that operation” says the last line – which it would, because for the British Establishment, there is never a case of “it’s a fair cop”. Neither will there ever be unless people, at long last, insist on it.
† For the record, the corporate-media clearly reported this booklet as having been property that had been residing in a house connected to the bomber:
‡ Update 25/05/17: Seemingly forgetting that the Times has seen a suitcase bomb, the Telegraph now reports that the bomb might have been in a rucksack on the bomber’s back – see here.
The following is from the article:
The rucksack bomb that killed 22 people in Manchester was so complex that it could only have been made by an expert, leaked crime scene pictures suggest, as it emerged that an al-Qaeda bomb-maker lived on the same street as suicide attacker Salman Abedi.
It becomes clear that the British Government is upset at the US “leaks” that led to this information becoming public knowledge because they point to that professional terror cell mentioned in this article – and it undermines the narrative set out by British Intelligence in its corporate-media arm. The fact that members of the LIFG hve been allowed to live in the UK, and come and go as they please to war zones, is the big story here, and it is a scandal that would rock the government if the corporate press in the UK wasn’t all state-controlled.
The reader might not be aware, but there is a race going on in Syria. It is between US-backed forces, and Syrian regulars, irregulars and Iranians, and the objective is to control the Iraqi/Syrian border. ISIS is collapsing in the south-east, but the US plan, which had been to control territory vacated by ISIS after US-proxies had expelled them from it, does not look like it will come to fruition. The reader may have heard about the trouble near al-Tanf where US fighter planes attacked an Iranian/irregular advance which came close to actual US and UK special forces that are based there (both countries committing international war crime, incidentally). Now, from the South Front battlefield intelligence gathering outfit, is this:
Since last weekend, the Syrian Army and its allies have made notable gains east of Suweida and along the Damascus-Baghdad highway. These advances posed a direct threat to the US-led plan aimed at building a buffer zone controlled by US-backed factions between Syria and Iraq. Now, the US-led forces are going to use force against the Syrian military in order to achieve their strategic goal.
One gets the feeling that circumstances are such that if push comes to shove – and with no appetite for war at home – the US and UK troops would have to concede what otherwise would have been hotly contested territory if a Syrian-Iranian-Russian-Iraqi alliance wants it that badly – and all the signs are that they do. However – and the picture is confused at the moment – it’s not beyond comprehension that the US and the UK would allow themselves to get dragged into a situation where they would be fighting alongside their “Free Syrian Army” proxies directly – if an appetite for such a state of affairs suddenly manifested itself in domestic public opinion. The most reliable, and well tested trigger for incensing a dramatic war lust would of course be terror; ultimately blamed, in the inverted-reality parallel dimension of Western propaganda, on Assad – he who always must be removed. And so, if this analysis even slightly resembles the actual scenario, then the US and UK governments have this week banked some excellent leverage for their escalation (with more to follow?)
But the author has already found little things about the Manchester Arena bomb attack that bother him. This article will focus on the way that the precise location of the explosion cannot be pinned down. There is a difference between what corporate-media, police, the venue management, and remote experts confidently talk about, and what evidence on the ground has to report when it appears in imagery and one very important witness interview in particular.
First of all, the author found the following two accounts, quite literally propping each other up in the Sun:
According to police, the blast occurred “within the foyer area of the stadium.” Manchester Arena said the blast took place “outside the venue in a public space.”
As it happens, the foyer is the location that all of the corporate-media (as far as the author has seen) cites as being the place of the explosion. [Update 24/05/17: see bottom of article for more images from corporate-media showing the location of the bomb - collectively, the claim of a bomb in an annex building is quite categorical. Note, there are various names for this annex, and the exact location of the explosion is never quite agreed upon]. The image below is out of the Guardian, and shows the foyer as being part of a protuberance sticking out of the main oval construction.
But the author has seen another account from a Will Geddes, CEO of security consultants ICP, as quoted in the Metro, which sounds very much like what Manchester Arena claimed:
They detonated a homemade bomb in the walkway between the stadium and the station…
No doubt they would have carried out some reconnaissance, it will have been very well planned and the individuals might have regarded the security at the stadium as too difficult and chosen the walkway as the next best option…
It was within the walkway between the stadium and the station this would have been an area with a high footfall with people leaving the stadium, they will be looking for somewhere they are going to optimise casualty ratings.
And yet, if the reader examines the two images below (click to enlarge), he or she will realise that the explosion could not have happened in the foyer, or in any place outside the venue, or in any place half way between the venue and public transport [the 3rd Update at the foot of the page clears this up a little. It seems that Will Geddes could have been correct after all]. The two images show some wounded being treated – apparently where they fell.
In the first, to the left of the image, you can see the entrance to the Prime Suite VIP boxes. The second image is looking at the same scene but from the other side of the doors that are visible at the back of the first image (see update at bottom of page for an uncropped version of the 2nd image). On the left of the second image, stairs can be seen.
The location shown has to be where the bombing took place – the evidence available to our own eyes tells us that. But that we can see the entrance to the Prime Suite VIP box tells us that the shot must have been taken inside the main oval body [a misunderstanding by the author - the 3rd update clears this up]. These hospitality suites ring the inner “field” of the complex – they are contained within a concourse running around the inside of the stadium that provides seating access and hosts conveniences and concession stands, etc.
And if we are still not sure, then there is more information that clarifies where this location is. Emma Johnson was waiting to collect her daughter (this is from the same Sun article linked to above – and the author has added emphasis in relation to identifying the site of the bomb):
She told BBC Radio 5 Live: “I was about 15 feet away from the blast. We were waiting for our children to come out and we stood at the top of the foyer – you go up some stairs and we were protected by glass on a barrier [the stairs in the 2nd image?].
“As the doors all opened – it was just before the end of the Dangerous Woman song – it hadn’t quite finished and obviously people were leaving to miss the traffic.
“So we said we’d stand up there so the children could see us. As people were coming out they were wearing the clothes of Ariana – you know the white, the black, the pink, because they all sold the merchandise.
“But for one split second I turned and saw what I can only describe as a bright red – that’s why it stood out – bright red, with a grey panel down the front with risen bits all over it.† [See Update 4].
“It was that that stood out because it was so intense, the colour, in this crowd of people.
“As quick as I saw it the explosion happened.”
The author has never been to the Manchester Arena, but it sounds like the foyer is seperated from the seating access area by a level, and also glass. [It's actually seperated by the doors in the image - see the 3rd Update at the foot of the page - but what constitutes the "foyer" is still unclear].
The following is Emma Johnson’s account as told in the Guardian:
A mother, at the concert with her two daughters, described seeing a man she believes to have been the suicide bomber. Emma Johnson told BBC Radio 5 Live: “I turned and saw [a] bright red top in the crowd with a grey panel down the front with risen bits all over it. It was that which stood out because it was so intense among the crowds of people. As quick as I saw it the explosion happened.”
She said she was 15ft (4.5 metres) away. “It happened near where they sell the merchandise,” said Johnson. “There were dead bodies everywhere. I saw the remains of the torso and the remains of the body.”
The reader can check for him or herself, and examine a map (one here) which shows a floor plan of the Manchester Arena. Notice the symbols for merchandise shops. From Emma Johnson’s account, and the images, we can place the explosion within the complex itself. [In actual fact, the mention of the merchandise shop is very misleading. See 3rd Update below]. Where exactly around the concourse (or seating access area) the incident took place, the author hasn’t the information or the time to discover. But, the explosion clearly took place inside the oval, and not in the extending building that has been identified as the foyer in corporate-media. [This is true to a certain extent - the explosion took place just beyond the doors into the concourse - see 3rd Update below].
The reader may be asking, what difference does it make? Of course, there is the issue of security – which we know little about except stories of its slackness (convenient). If the foyer is for public who can’t get to the seating access concourse, then it’s something that we should be able to understand so as to try and find out why this incident happened (how did the bomber get beyond it?) [In the context of the 3rd Update, below, what would be interesting to know is if people can get into the City Room exit area without having been inside the arena (i.e. from outside the complex, and without a ticket for a show)].
But the main reason is this: when something – anything – happens in our phsyical reality, then there should be certainty in all the following facts about it. That is how things were in the pre-Post-Normal world, and that is how some of us still expect things to be. So, when we look at this Manchester incident with those expectations, why would it be that there is a bombing, and there are witnesses, and there are emergency services on the ground, but their information and their experience can’t make it up through chains of command, or reporting, to the liason system, and its operatives, that communicates what is supposed to be factual truth to the public in general? Why is there a disconnect? It speaks to the author of the latter group – the people dealing with public perception – having a script, and sticking to it, while the former group reports what actually happened. And when there is this disconnect – which should be setting off alarm bells given the stakes – it means that when empirical data – information from actual experience – gets channelled to the public audience and it is very different to the “script”, then whatever is conflicting is just usually ignored, and the contrariness is not remarked upon. That there is a parlous state of dumbed-down obtuseness in the general population of Britain (look at the way it sends its children unattended to an age-inappropriate concert by artists into Masonic ritual as performance) is of great advantage to the British Government when its agents in the field of shaping perception require doublethink – or more accurately nothink. Fortunately, some of us do have the wherewithal to notice when something doesn’t add up, and when a story stinks like a fish. That’s not to say that there weren’t many terrible outcomes for individual human beings at this Manchester incident, and now unimaginable sadness for other people who lost loved ones. But there is, quite frankly, something globally more terrible at hand (war, no less), and for that reason we tend, here at FBEL, to allow a concern for a greater threatened catastrophe drive us to find whatever uncomfortable truth there is to be discovered.
From the Daily Mail:
From the BBC:
Second Update: 24/05/2017:
The above image is an uncropped version of one that appears in the body of the article. It was obtained from a video by Free Radio Revolution, and the creator of that channel, Jeff C, comments that warnings had appeared on Twitter about this being disinfo, and not real. Indeed, it is very hard to find this image on the internet via a google search. The author thinks that means there is something in it we are not meant to see.
Third Update: 24/05/2017:
New images, but things are only a little clearer as a result. The first is from one of the action comic strip things that the Daily Mail produces so its readership can get the gist:
The second image is a section of the ground floor map that was linked to above (it helps to understand the Daily Mail graphic):
The event, then, seems to have happened in the City Room exit zone, and very close to its northern perimeter. The Box Office is in the direction of the steps mentioned above, so looks like this is where the witness featured in the article must have been located, and there is a distinct seperation between it and where the attack took place. The DM graphic is not being honest – and notice the graphic doesn’t show what is east of the exit area. In fact, reviewing the material, there has been a general vagueness in the naming of the locations by corporate-media – see the variety in the images above.
Notice that a merchandise shop is shown in the DM graphic – this must be the one that features in the witness’ story (which the author now wonders about). Although the location of the explosion has been cleared up in the process of updating this article, it doesn’t change something essential. Although the corporate-media has been vague about the precise location of the explosion, and vague in its naming conventions, the attack didn’t happen in the Box Office – if the ground plan is accurate. And if the Box Office is also the foyer, it didn’t happen there either.
Fourth Update: 24/05/2017:
Today the Independent reports this:
CCTV footage seen by The Times showed the 22-year-old putting the suitcase down in the foyer between Manchester Arena and Victoria station shortly before it detonated amid Ariana Grande fans pouring out of the concert.
This is the first time the author has heard of a bomb in the suitcase, assuming from Emma Johnson’s witness testimony that the suspect was wearing the bomb (something to do with risen bits and his top). Note, that a more exact location is indicated, and note that somehow the Times newspaper (basically British Intelligence itself) has been allowed to see this footage. So now we are seeing the sort of narrative shifting and/or tightening, and prepostrerousness that we’d expect to see if the event was indeed a false flag attack.
This article is actually the third and last one in the series “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates” (first two here, and here), but there is a broader point to make, thus the irregular title. It should also be the last article about the general election; this site has worn the subject out, and issued enough warnings. In this article the author wants to remind the reader of the very pro-EU nature of the House of Commons, and point out that that character isn’t going to suddenly undergo a Damascene conversion just because the plebeian and the profane voted to leave the EU. Indeed, the author has in a previous article explained that the Parliament has been captured by the UK Establishment for Globalism against the British Constitution. Based on this analysis, do you seriously think that you are going to be allowed to free Parliament from legal and regulatory harmony with the EU (otherwise known as Fake Brexit) by casting a vote in an election? You will not be allowed to do that, and the means by which you will be barred is the same way the British Government always prevents you from spoiling its agenda: psyching you out. The British Government’s plan to keep Parliament conquered for the EU involves duping you into returning a Tory majority, while simultaneously making UKIP – the means by which you could free Parliament – into a gutted out husk. The author can say this with certainty, not only because he understands, by study, what the British ruling class is capable of, not only because he has actually looked at crucial literature regarding the Government’s approach to “Brexit”, but also because he can foresee the ongoing nature of the Commons just by its components – its numbers – and understand that nothing is going to change with any Tory majority that you create in the mistaken belief that you are voting to construct independence from the EU.
Consider the image, below, taken from a BBC webpage that explains how MPs allegiances were distributed at the time of the EU Referendum.
If one visits the page and scrolls down, there are full lists of names corresponding to the chart. Please focus on the spread of the Tory MPs. At the time, there were 185 that wanted the UK to remain in the EU, and 138 who wanted the UK to leave. The total of these two sets are the number of Tory MPs who declared their position – therefore 7 names are missing. We know this because at the end of the 2015-2017 Parliament, there were 330 Tory MPs, according to the parliament website. It is true that since the 2015 election, the Tories lost Richmond Park, but gained Copeland, and David Cameron also stepped down to be replaced by another Tory: giving a net increase of zero. But did this alter the make-up of the Leave/Remain spread?
Trudy Harrison is the substitute Tory MP from the 2017 by-election, and this is what she has to say about Brexit in some election bumf:
This election is our chance to send a message that the EU referendum result must be respected, and to back Theresa May’s plan…
Robert Courts was the replacement for Cameron: here is what he had to say about the same:
This is a crucial time in our history and it is essential that the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand is strengthened, safe in the knowledge that she has the backing of the country.
So, on the face of it, both of these MPs can go in the pro-Brexit column (equating to +1, because Zac Goldsmith was replaced), and because Cameron was fanatically pro-EU, we can take one out of the anti-Brexit tally. The new Leave total would be 139, and the new Remain total would be 184 – with 7 that we can’t apportion to any side.
But it’s just not that simple. Crucially, both of these new Tory MPs are both of the “Strong and stable” catechism type. The previous article in this series (find link at the top of the page) introduced this idea, but we will deal with the point some more here. This “Strong and stable”† type are just ballast for the Theresa May Fake Brexit torpedo – to keep it hidden under the water until it hits the target. And we know this because they publically declare that they want to be elected on a ticket of giving her carte blanche; to back her unconditionally in her negotiations with the EU. The reader could probably bet the house that most supposedly pro-Brexit Tory MPs, new and old, are of this type. And that’s why it really doesn’t matter how many of them appear on the right hand side of the above chart. We’ll return to this crucial fact by and by.
The numbers in the Remain/Leave spread need to be modified a bit more. There are 8 MPs named in the Remain list who are standing down at this election. All the seats that these MPs are vacating are extremely safe for the Tories. As it happens, four of the incoming candidates have been dealt with in “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part One”. These are, Neil o’ Brien, Harborough; Vicky Ford; Chelmsford; Alex Burghart, Brentwood and Ongar, and Kemi Badenoch, Saffron Walden. One of these, Ford, is a confirmed Remainer. O’ Brien and Burghart were advisors to Theresa May, and Badenoch was with the Spectator, and is a current London Assembly member. Additionally, another of this ilk, a certain Julia Dockerill, is incoming in the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency. She was a Parliamentary aide who got a lot of unwanted attention when she was photographed entering or leaving Downing street with meeting notes, pitched under arm, but on display to the world. Kemi Badenoch is a black lady, but ditzy Dockerill looks like the one who is benefitting from affirmative action.
So here we have 5 candidates – one of which remains on the Remain side. Two of them are close to the Prime Minister – and so if they are pro-Brexit, then they are surely going to be pro-Brexit in the same way that Theresa May is: fake for the sake of votes. Be that as it may, let us put them in the pro-Brexit column in any case.
In Chichester, another insanely safe Tory seat, the incoming candidate is Gillian Keegan. She has apparently been on the district council in the City, but the author cannot get a firm fix on whether she was involved in the area before 2015. In the general election of that year she was the candidate for St Helens South and Whiston. Her bumf also makes her out to be a bit of a budding globalist “for… 25 years she worked and lived abroad, working in the manufacturing, banking and IT industries.” The author can’t definitively identify her as being pro-Brexit. Tyrie, her predecessor, was definitely not, and the author can’t imagine the Tories of Chichester discriminating for or against Keegan along those lines. In any case, we’ll put her in the pro-Brexit column.
The last two incoming candidates of the 8 are more verifiably pro-Brexit. Andrew Lewer, an MEP who voted Leave, inherits the Northampton South seat. Esther McVey, about whom corporate-media implies pro-Brexit sentiment, is set to take over George Osbourne’s seat. This means two more for the pro-Brexit column.
So, with these new MPs in place, of the Leave Tories, there would be 146 in the Commons, and of the Remain Tories, there would be 177 – with 7 that we can’t apportion to any side.
The last piece of information we need for this exercise is the projected number of seats for the Tories in the 2017 election; the author picked one that appeared in the Independent at the beginning of May and was based on council election results. It predicted a crop of 349 seats. That is a mere 19 more than the Tories currently hold. Let’s put them all on the pro-Brexit column – which would give us a grand total of 165 pro-Brexit Tory MPs, and 177 Remain MPs – and of course, the 7 unclassifiable extra.
Now, the reader must agree that the author has been conservative, and has placed certain incoming candidates, who we should be extremely suspicious about, in the pro-Brexit count – but even so, all these new additions do not make the number of pro-Brexit MPs overtake the pro-EU ones. Even if that unassignable 7 was attributed to the pro-Brexit count, it would still mean that there were more pro-EU Tories in the Commons than not. And on top of that, let’s not forget a very important point. It is probably safe to say that most pro-Brexit Tory MPs are going to be of that “Strong and stable” sort who will just go along with anything that the Executive branch of government – essentially the cabinet – wants to do. And with regards the cabinet, the author fully expects May to bring in her newly elected ex-advisors that have been discussed extensively on these pages, and we’ll find out that, like her, they are not so pro-Brexit after all.
Theresa May is a puppet doing the bidding of some people who aren’t publically in power, but who rule in any case, and for whom the EU referendum Leave result was a horrible aberration. Her being selected as the head of the Executive branch of the British Government was about ensuring an outcome that, those who pull her strings, are desirous of in the light of that deviation from their course – an outcome that mitigates the referendum vote. From the literature put out by the Government so far, it is very clear that the Tories are going to deliver what the author has consistently been calling a Fake Brexit – a state of affairs where Britain is in the EU in all but name.
And so ultimately, it doesn’t make any difference if you, being someone who wants to see Brexit fully delivered, and would usually have voted UKIP, instead vote for a so-called pro-Brexit Tory candidate or not. Clearly, you should vote UKIP if you can, and in preference to a Tory candidate. The author does not have a UKIP candidate standing in his town, and so couldn’t vote for a Tory ahead of one even if he were hypnotised by propaganda to want to do such a thing (fat chance of it ever happening). As such, the author is not going to vote, and advises others who want to vote UKIP, but who can’t, to do the same. Let the cards lay where they fall. If the LibLabCon has to form a coalition within itself to fake-deliver Brexit, then let it also expose itself in doing so. Whatever it does, it won’t suddenly announce no Brexit, because there would be hell to pay. But we will get to see the LibLabCon connivers cook in their own mess – trying to fake deliver something that they don’t want – and we, who didn’t vote for them – thus earning some rare credibility – will be on suitably high enough ground from which to direct the attention of pro-Brexit people, and direct it towards the miserable sleight of hands tricks that the Government is inevitably going to have to attempt. The British Government has long had it coming with regards its 40-year project of EU-treason, and that’s the delivery that we are going to make.
† After completing this article, the author was searching around for an image to use as a feature, and came across the one below. This image, which is captioned at its source in a way that clearly confirms the fact, shows that a version of the Tories “Strong and stable” general election campaign slogan was used to promote continuation of the UK membership of the EU.
There can now be no excuses. If people vote Tory expecting Brexit, and then find that Britain remains in the EU in all but name, then they can’t say that they weren’t warned. In fact, at that point – having been so wilfully obstinate against receiving any caution - they will have become part of the problem too: they, in their willingness to facilitate the treason, will have become as fair game as any treacherous LibLabCon politician. Claiming ignorance will be no defence, because David Cameron has now told everyone the truth about Theresa May and any Parliament that the Tories dominate. The author knows that the British people are generally arrogantly obtuse to the nth degree, and think that reading a British newspaper makes them well informed. The author knows that they need the voice of authority to tell them what they should or shouldn’t think, and thus, when a lowly internet “nobody” comes along claiming to have actually read the small print and seen a betrayal ahead, they don’t credit it. So now, when someone who was once the British Prime Minister, no less, has told them outright what to expect, then they have been warned:
[Cameron] said it was vital the Tories win a big majority so Mrs May can “stand up to people who want an extreme Brexit, either here or in Brussels”.
The reader should bear this in mind, then, as we look at more Tory candidates that Theresa May is hoping to load Parliament with in order to fight “extreme Brexit” – which means not delivering Brexit at all. Soft Brexit means No Brexit. “What?” the pro-Brexit reader asks, “how can this be when the Tory election motto is ‘Strong and stable’?” Well, the intention of that motto is to inspire a big Tory majority – that senario supposedly being preferable to any coalition that a less than decisive turnout for the Conservatives might create. The author explained the reason for the fear of having to form a coalition in the first article in this series “The Tory Fake Brexit Candidates; Part One”: in short, it’s about sparing the public from the reality of the LibLabCon as one entity – rest assured, Theresa May would never form an official coalition with UKIP, not when she can’t even afford to have UKIP in the Commons showing the Tory Party up for what it really is. However, Brexiteers who see “Strong and stable” are supposed to imagine that this is about having the capacity to deliver Brexit – which it is, but just not in the fashion that they imagine. As Cameron admitted, “Strong and stable”, or a “strong hand” in relation to the EU is about delivering Fake Brexit. It’s all explained in previous article.
As all this has been emerging, the reader might have noticed the Brexit pressure group, Leave.EU, still engaged in a campaign to ask voters to “put country before party” and elect what it calls Brexit candidates. The idea generally seems to be about encouraging UKIP voters to vote Tory, because the campaign’s organisers cannot be so naïve as to imagine that confirmed Tories would ever stoop to lend a vote to UKIP (they should try delivering UKIP election material to these people). Now, to be fair, this frenzy of surrender is not confined to Leave.EU, for UKIP itself has decided that in a lot of seats it will not stand a candidate on the grounds that it would risk the unseating of a so-called “Brexit candidate” from another party.
The big problem with this spirit of self-sacrifice is, as mentioned above, the failure of the Tories to reciprocate. Did the reader, know, for instance, that of the 120 seats that UKIP achieved a 2015 second place, 44 were won by Labour. The author hasn’t checked, but there’s a distinct possibility that most of the Labour candidates standing in these seats this year are for remaining in the EU. Therefore, under the “Brexit alliance” strategy, surely we should be expecting the Tories, who came third in the seats, to withhold their own people, and ask their support to vote UKIP. Of course, this isn’t what is happening, and it’s not happening because a big majority, and no UKIP, is required so the Tories can deliver Fake Brexit – or no Brexit at all (these things do need to be repeated over and over again). So, in this article we’re going to look at some of these seats, and who the Tories are putting up in them as the UK Government tries to convince Britons they will be getting Brexit, when they are going to see no such thing.
First up is actually a constituency that isn’t in the list of UKIP 2nds because it is the one seat that UKIP did win in 2015 – Clacton. It still counts to be included in this analysis, because the Tories are trying to deny UKIP in a seat that the latter has more support in. The Tory candidate is Giles Waitling, a man who doesn’t appear in the corporate-media very far away from a mention of his role in whiny 80s sit-“com”, “Bread”. Most LibLabCon politicians pay lip service to principles that they dangle to win support, but here is an actual actor – someone who is paid to pretend to be something he is not - and should we be surprised to learn that he doesn’t think that the UK should leave the EU, but wants Brexit delivered anyway? A local paper reports:
I voted remain in the referendum, but above all I am a democrat…
A Conservative government delivered the referendum, the referendum delivered a result in favour of Brexit and we now must leave the EU – and we must manage it well.
Actually, the truth of the matter is that the referendum result was a big surprise to the Conservative government – and indeed a shock to the Tories who led the official Leave campaign, if their stunned demeanour in the days after is anything to go by – delivered under pressure from a growing UKIP threat, and actually won by the UKIP national network that has been in place for years – all that time campaigning for withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, it appears that Cameron is routinely upbraided for what Remainers see as a dreadful error in allowing the referendum in the first place. So Waitling deploys several layers of deception, which shouldn’t need explanation to an astute reader. Instead, let’s concentrate on another line attributed to the actor:
The 27 countries of the EU are lining up against us as we knew they would. It is essential that Theresa May is given a strong hand to deal with the EU.
Notice the appearance of the word “strong”. This is the Tory Party talking point “Strong and stable”. Waitling wants Theresa May to have a “strong hand”, in the same way David Cameron wants it for her.
This “Strong and stable” talking point naturally features in the bumf of other Tory candidates. In Dagenham and Rainham, Tory Julie Marson as the following on her website:
We need a Conservative Government to be elected on 8th June 2017 to ensure that we have a strong and stable Government to deliver the best deal for the UK in negotiations with the EU.
Here’s the 2015 results from the constituency:
Labour Jon Cruddas 17,830 votes 41.4%
UKIP Peter Harris 12,850 29.8
Tory Julie Marson 10,492 24.4
From West Bromwich West, Tory Andrew Hardie had the following written about him:
He sees the Brexit negotiations as central to this, as the Prime Minister will need solid support behind her when she enters negotiations to gain the best possible result for the country.
The results from 2015:
Labour (Co-op) Adrian Bailey 16,578 votes 47.3%
UKIP Graham Eardley 8,836 25.2
Tory Paul Ratner 8,365 23.9
While this example reminds that there are many cases where it perhaps wouldn’t really matter if one party stood down for another, it serves to illustrate that the “Strong and stable” talking point is pervasive – and more importantly, it is flexible. It doesn’t need to be linked with leaving the EU explicitly; a candidate less happy with Brexit, and there are many – in fact, a majority of Tory MPs voted to remain (as reported here) – could just leave it to the electorate to make the association according to their expectations, and happily omit any overt commitment to enabling or supporting Brexit.
Hartlepool is a seat that UKIP has a great chance of winning, even with a Tory element competing for it too. The result at the 2015 election was:
Labour Iain Wright 14,076 votes 35.6%
UKIP Phillip Broughton 11,052 28
Tory Richard Royal 8,256 20.9
For this election, the Tories have parachuted in a man who lives in Buckingham, Carl Jackson. Consider this case, reader, as illustrative of the brutal reality. The Tories would risk handing the seat to Labour by parachuting a candidate into the constituency. This is how much they want to deny UKIP. The author couldn’t find much on this character, but did manage to discover that he’s claiming affinity with Hartlepudlians through Brexit:
One thing is getting Brexit right. I campaigned for Brexit so I’m very much in step with 70% of Hartlepool residents.
It occurs to the author that Carl Jackson is a “Sodoff Baldrick” candidate – meaning that, like the character in Blackadder, who had a vegetable lodged in his gob throughout the hustings, is a front who isn’t meant to make much noise. In other words, he’s there to spoil against UKIP. Indeed, the gossip column of Establishment politics Order-Order.com, reported that the Tory group leader on Hartlepool Council formally requested UKIP stand their candidate down using spurious-looking polling data (otherwise known as gaslighting).
Bethan Sian Eddy looks as though she is another “Sodoff Baldrck” Tory spoiler. She is standing for the Rother Valley seat. The author can’t find anything on her apart from the following extract from a blog by a fellow by the name of Tim A Wells, who must be a local. He has nothing to say about her either:
Lives in Nuneaton. A parachuted candidate. Know nothing about him or her, can’t find anything when I google. I understand they last stood in Nuneaton as a Conservative.
The situation in Rother Valley in 2015 looked like this:
Labour Kevin Barron 20,501 votes 43.6%
UKIP Allen Cowles 3,204 28.1
Tory Gareth Streeter 10,945 23.3
Tim A Wells says that Barron campaigned for Remain, although we should be careful what we claim about this character (at least if we do it without having convicting evidence) because he is one of the Rotherham MPs that Jane Collins, the UKIP MEP, owes damages to after a particular infamous case of slander and libel. The author wonders how much local appreciation of this business will come into play in this election, for the author is sure that local people have an ear to the ground in a way no distant analyst can – not to mention any High Court judge.
In the Rotherham constituency, the incumbent Labour MP is Sarah Champion – another Remainer according to our man on the ground. She is also one the MPs who brought suit against Jane Collins and so, again, the author wonders if there will be local sensitivities that will affect the outcome in an uncommon way. One thing is for certain, the Tories have very little to no chance of winning, as the 2015 results suggests:
Labour Sarah Champion 19,860 votes 52.5%
UKIP Jane Collins 11,414 30.2
Tory Sebastian Lowe 4,656 12.3
Despite the long shot, the Tories have put up a man going by the name of James Howard Bellis to spoil against UKIP’s Allen Cowles, who could bring the fight very close given Rotherham’s specific circumstances. Now, the author could find nothing about James Howard Bellis – so another “Sodoff Baldrick”. He did, however, discover that a man going by the name of James Bellis ran for the Tories in Vauxhall in 2015.
The final example, for now is Heywood and Middleton. This was the 2015 result:
Labour Liz McInnes 20,926 votes 43.1%
UKIP John Bickley 15,627 32.2
Tory Iain Gartside 9,268 19.1
Once again, the Tories are way off winning the seat, and must have hubris up to the eyeballs if they imagine that the UKIP vote is going to collapse to such an extent as to put the Tories first over the finish line. This case really speaks to the author of the Tories deliberately spoiling against UKIP.
At least the Tory candidate, Christopher Clarkson, is a local man (and this explains his visibility in the local press?). He is reported as campaigning along the following lines:
If I am your MP, I will back Theresa May’s plan for Brexit and beyond – pushing for the best possible deal for Britain, with access to free trade with Europe, but without giving up control over our borders or our right to trade with other countries around the world.
However, I’m also clear that, if the EU won’t negotiate fairly with us, then no deal is better than a bad deal. People have voted for Brexit, not a half-measure.
This Tory candidate does indeed go beyond minimum requirements, because he talks about walking away from the EU without striking a deal – and on the surface this might look impressive to a Brexiteer. But it is just rhetoric. Whether the EU is fair or unfair depends on what the British Government will accept. The bottom line is that it doesn’t need to accept any deal – please read the many articles on FBEL that explain this. And yet, the British Government will accept many impositions, which will be framed as compromises, so that the UK stays in the EU in all but name – this too was predicted in many FBEL articles. The key piece of information in what Christopher Clarkson has to say is the commitment to Fake Brexit: “I will back Theresa May’s plan”.
If the reader would normally have voted UKIP in this 2017 election, but were tempted to vote Tory because of the “Strong and stable” hypnotism, don’t do it. Don’t worry if it causes a coalition where “labour will hold Brexit to ransom”. What is more important is forcing the LibLabCon relationship out into the open. And there really is nothing to lose. If the UK Government suddenly announces that there is no longer going to be a Brexit, what do you think is going to happen to its fake left-right control paradigm when a vast majority of EU-hating English all get extreme? The British Establishment doesn’t want to find out – that’s why it’s soft-soaping you. It sounds obvious, but in all the talk of cynical tactical voting the purism of voting on principle can be obscured. Electing UKIP MPs is about getting people into the House of Commons who genuinely want the country to leave the EU. These people are needed to provide a core around which any real pro-Brexit opposition to Fake Brexit will coagulate from other parties. If, as it turns out, the electorate fail to deliver UKIP MPs, it certainly won’t be the end of the game – although the Establishment will be declaring UKIP dead. The Tories are on course to being found out in their Fake Brexit, and the backlash will be dreadful. The Establishment is going to get what’s coming to it with regards the whole EU deception, but why on Earth do we need to wait any longer than necessary, or suffer any more heart ache before it does?
“Jeff C”, of the FreeRadioRevolution YouTube channel, is doing some very interesting work exposing the so-called Alt-Right media. Generally, the author finds YouTube to be idiotic, but has been listening to this particular media analyst and event sceptic for a while – although always in a guarded way. Media is an intelligence battle ground (and those of us who have a go soon find out). One should treat information as a fuller package: the data, and who is saying it. Then it can be fetched out later to make a bigger picture when the jigsaw allows. The immediate beef that the author does have with Jeff C is his propensity for letting the blame for the world’s ills end with Zionism and Israel. This always invites the charge of anti-Semitism, and it’s a trap that is completely avoidable.
Jeff C postulates that what is loosely called “alternative media”, which is a huge and diverse genre of communication, is being concreted, in the public consciousness, into a limited grouping that is not representative across the board, but will nevertheless be identified as “alternative media”. In other words, someone is trying to create a perception that alternative media means one thing alone – and that thing is the Alt-Right – so that people can’t visualise “alternative media” outside of what is actually a false left-right paradigm. The installation of the Alt-Right, then, has in fact been the establishment of a “right-end” of a new political-media landscape – with the left being mainly corporate-media. The author must admit, the scheme has Globalist endeavour written all over it, and has indeed noticed that certain big names in big alternative media, who once warned consumers of “full spectrum dominance” (meaning one entity controlling left and right – which is indeed how things work) now likes to talk in terms of left versus right. The reference is to Infowars, but there are other main components, including Breitbart, and The Rebel Media – together with a new and recent blossoming of alt-right celebrities that have come out of nowhere during the Trump election campaign.
One doesn’t have to be very observant to perceive that a common feature of Alt-Right media is its virulent and tireless opposition to Islam. Now Islam has problems, this can’t be denied, and these problems need to be addressed. Indeed, they could be tackled easily – if western Government really wanted to. However, UK Government (let’s deal with our own case) prefers the state of tension that comes about through the continued incongruity of resolutely medieval Islam within a philosophical system that can’t accommodate it. In short, the UK Government needs the thorn of Islam in home territories in order to stoke support for foreign wars in Muslim countries. It really is a simple as all that. If people want to deal with Islam, they might start by refusing to react to provocation: the so-called attacks by Muslims which, when scrutinised beyond the corporate-media narrative, reveal themselves to be false flags; the psyops generated by intelligence agencies in their corporate-media arms and stories designed to stir hatred (the author believes the story about a Muslim who was in a pub and was accidently served pork could be a recent example). If people didn’t allow themselves to be wound up, the UK Government wouldn’t find Islam a very useful tool, and no one would notice it was a problem. However, when one looks at the history of Islam, and realises that expansion sometimes comes through its very backwardness (this will have to be explained in an FBEL “newsletter”), it cannot not be noticed. The solution is to deal with the British Government – to cut the head off the snake. That so many people don’t want to admit the real problem is a sign of a classic persecution system in operation.
Also in operation in Britain (and elsewhere, but we’ll stick with home) is the classic Hegelian Dialectic: the UK Government has created a problem with Islam, and it uses a reaction to it to further its agenda: to execute a “solution” to the problem. Well, war in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else one might care to mention is not the solution, and of course never fixing that which is broken means the Hegelian dynamic for war is never ending. But it does need feeding, and that is what the co-optioned “alternative media” – the Alt-Right – has been cultivated for. Now, Jeff C says that the ultimate benefactor is Israel, and thus the Alt-Right is “Zionist-controlled”. This outlook, in small alternative media in general, needs modification because it is not correct.
A proper and detailed examination of “Sionism” – it’s proper name – is planned in another future FBEL “newsletter”, but suffice it to say, the source of the phenomenon is British Israelism, and a Freemasonic concern for the capstone to be placed on the pyramid: symbolism for the completion of what is known as the Great Work (in fact, a Globalist socialist “utopia”). The building of the Temple of Sion is another metaphor for this – but somewhere along the way it developed a branch where it took on a literal dimension, and turned into physical Israel (which perhaps should be thought of as being more like another attempt at the Medieval Outremer than the Mosaic promised land). In short, Israel is a tool of some rich and powerful people – undoubtedly adherents of the Luciferian philosophy – who are using the Brotherhood network that is inherent to and has spawned from that belief system to create global circumstances that benefit them. This is what it basically boils down to, and the author can grasp it because he has invested time in, and understood William Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series; the reader is recommended to do the same.
But there is an opposing side to the paradigm that, on one flank, Israel occupies, and this is, of course, Islamic expansionism – a bug bear extraordinaire for the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right’s opposition to Islamic expansionism is the very essence of its anti-Islamism. So we clearly have a full spectrum dominance situation, and it cries out for scrutiny. Thus the author was inspired to unpack and re-examine intelligence revolving around, and regarding Breitbart/London.
The chief figure at the London version of Breitbart is Raheem Kassam, and what struck the author foremost, after a first perusal of Wikipedia entry for this fellow, was how Kassam had been “involved in an attempted foundation of the UK version of the Tea Party movement”. Now, this happened around 2010, and, frankly, it was an attempt by the Tories – the infamous Daniel Hannan being most prominent – to undermine UKIP. If Kassam was involved in this, then he’s off to a bad start in the author’s book. The following is also very interesting to anyone who suspects that ISIS is US/UK-intelligence led: “[Kassam] attended the University of Westminster at the same time as the ISIS executioner known as ‘Jihadi John’, and has called his alma mater a ‘hot bed’ of fundamentalism”.
Wikipedia says that Kassam set up Breitbart/London with James Delingpole – who infamously called on his readers to vote for “my mate Dave” in the 2010 election (“they are… our least worst option), which was activity that the author categorizes alongside Hannan’s Tea Party as anti-UKIP. Indeed, the author was quick to notice that Breitbart/London, in its first outings, would have liked its audience to perceive UKIP as a right-wing little brother of the Tories – an idea that would have already been rejected by a majority in the party (UKIP described itself as being libertarian), but of course the Establishment will always try to dictate perceptions.
Other important data: the launch of Breitbart/London was in February 2014; Kassam became a UKIP voter in 2013 – according to his Wiki entry – and it wasn’t long after the launch of Breitbart – the 23rd October 2014 to be precise – that Raheem Kassam became Nigel Farage’s “senior aide” with his role described as being “to lead on advising Mr Farage in developing party messaging, strategy, fundraising and publicity.”
At the risk of making the reader wonder what this tangent has to do with anything (bear with it), before this appointment, in March 2013, Nigel Farage had a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, and the Telegraph speculated that the two talked about a political pact with the Tories at the 2015 election – as long as David Cameron stood down as leader of his party. Farage didn’t comment, and the Telegraph was probably engaged in diversionary tactics – or mischief. The author (who thought the meeting inappropriate) always wondered if there wasn’t any political tradecraft going on – Farage doing something in return for something that Murdoch wanted. Could it have been media related?
Well, things started to happen for UKIP. There was the big win at the European elections. And then there was the Douglas Carswell defection. This happened a week before another meeting between Farage and Murdoch in September 2014. According to Farage, Murdoch was “generally interested in hearing about the Carswell story”. Of course, there was the Great Cheat of 2015 (the general election), where UKIP had who-knows-many seats stolen off them on a night of dodgy counting, after which Kassam rejoined Breitbart. Notably the piece that announced the move foreshadowed the trouble that would be ahead for UKIP from these quarters…
Stephen K. Bannon, Executive Chairman of the Breitbart News Network said: “If UKIP’s Patrick O’Flynn thinks that he’s seen aggressive, Tea Party, American-style politics, he ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Kassam said, “It’s great to come home after a gruelling election campaign. I intend to give the left wing of UKIP — the people who tried to push tax raises and didn’t want to talk about immigration — the attention they deserve. I’m sure Louise Mensch will be delighted.”
It wasn’t long before there was indeed a so-called “Right vs Left”, Farage vs Carswell internal UKIP spat that seemed to live most vividly in the pages of Breitbart/London. That Breitbart/London loved to insert “right” and “left” into a party that was trying to swear off the concept always struck the author as oddly tenacious, and he has long held suspicions that infiltration of UKIP through the Carswell period had taken place at both ends to foment disruption throughout the party, although he feels that Farage had been played, rather than had intentionally run anti-UKIP disruption.
So, bringing things up to date, Kassam ran for the leadership of UKIP in 2016, and one of his campaign pledges was “to end the blanket ban on former members of groups like the English Defence League and BNP from being allowed to join the party.”
The PoliticsHome article continues:
Such a move could make the likes of Tommy Robinson, the controversial former English Defence League leader and friend of Mr Kassam, eligible for Ukip membership.
If you go to Breitbart and search for Tommy Robinson, you’ll find 7 result-pages worth of articles about him. Not least, there is an interview of Robinson – or Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, to give him his proper and full name – by Kassam himself, from which the following is taken:
[Robinson] also attacked the fascist elements that he claimed had infiltrated his former organisation, blasting the BNP and its former leader Nick Griffin, and remembering the first EDL march, where “we had placards that said… National Front go to hell.”
The author assumes (because he didn’t go to the trouble of watching the video) that what is being referred to in the text is Robinson’s EDL – with the implication given that it had started free of “far-right” intrusion. What this fails to convey is the fact that Robinson was himself briefly in the BNP, as he himself has freely admitted. Of course, Griffin had his own opinion of Robinson, and in a YouTube video, which can be viewed here, he appears to think that it was in fact Robinson who had been an infiltrator:
He came along, he’s been puffed up, hyped up by the Zionist backers, by the mass media, now by these fake moderate Muslims… they’re certainly fake, they’re either run by the British government, or they’re in fact hard liners wearing a soft mask – one way or another, yet again he’s a tool for someone else.
(The author finds it very interesting that Griffin’s hostility to Robinson drew a counter attack from the Establishment opinion-former, the Spectator, which attempted to ridicule crticism of Robinson as “Zionist puppet, Neocon fraud, and Wahhabist stooge”. This speaks volumes. Additionally, please note that the current BNP gives Robinson heroic treatment).
Well, we’ve already examined where the finger of blame should ultimately go when Zionism is evoked, and notice that Griffin talks about Muslim fundamentalists who pretend to be moderate, and who may or may not be controlled by British Government. Griffin, whether he understands it or not, is talking about the model for ultimate control in relation to Tommy Robinson and Muslims: the full spectrum dominance. In fact, there is rumour that the British so-called “far-right” has long been infiltrated, and is riddled with British intelligence for the purpose of tarring real national sovereignty movements with the same racist brush. The following is from the History of the BNP Wikipedia page:
[in 1993] the BNP proscribed membership of the group and claimed it had been infiltrated by MI5. In September 1995, Tyndall maintained that in response to the BNP’s victory in Millwall, C18 [Combat 18] had been ‘created’ by the State security services in order to wreck the BNP and its electoral support.
The author thinks that this is completely feasible, and in fact feels that, just to be safe, one should assume “Far-rightism” is an intelligence operation – in the UK it’s too idiotic to be anything else. And so this is why Raheem Kassam’s stated intention, while running for the leadership of UKIP, to open up the party for his “friend” Tommy Robinson and others of his ilk was of great concern. It should still be for anyone paying attention.
As we begin to tie things together, it should be no surprise to learn that Tommy Robinson, become a correspondent for The Rebel Media in February 2017. The author has also noticed that he does feature on Infowars quite an uncommon lot these days, appearing in interview with Paul Joseph Watson – another who coined the sarcasm “cultural enrichment” in conjunction with Muslim immigration into Europe, Britain and North America. And of course, Robinson continues to be receive coverage from Breitbart, which has also started pushing another character who should be treated with nothing but complete suspicion.
Anne Marie Waters is from Dublin (note, both of Tommy Robinson’s parents were Irish). She is somewhat at the centre of a new bit of trouble for UKIP because, as Paul Nuttall puts it, her views about Islam go “way above and beyond party policy”. Previous to her not being selected as a UKIP candidate for the 2017 election, there was a push by an element of UKIP (probably just a genuinely misguided one – people have been whipped into a frenzy after all) to make hers a prominent voice within the party. It seems that the UKIP leadership is cannier than its enemies give it credit for: the incursion failed, as it deserved to. In 2015, Waters tried to get selected as a Labour candidate, standing in the seat of Brighton Pavilion – she lost out, and anti-Muslim sentiment was also mooted as being a reason. At the time, she had very different feelings about UKIP:
I will undermine UKIP by addressing the issues they address and I will do so in plain English and listen respectfully to people’s concerns, no matter how taboo.
This alone, in the author’s view, is disqualifying. But then, additionally, one has to ask, is the anti-Islam thing coming from genuinely held ideas, or is it purely about undermining UKIP? Is it anti-UKIP activity? As we might by now have come to expect, Kassam weighed into the affair with a story headlined thusly: “If UKIP Ditches Anne Marie Waters, the Party Is Over”. In fact, he’d also been kicking up a stink when UKIP dropped Waters from their selection list for London Assembly candidates in 2016 – so we get the picture: Breitbart/London doesn’t like UKIP excluding an anti-Muslim agitator. Kassam presents the rejection of Waters as indicative of a failing UKIP leadership. The author suggests that, in the light of the evidence, and thanks to the revelation of the method, the reader should be able to see just exactly what is going on.
This brings us to something that is supposed to provide an overall summarising lesson, and it started as being quite the amazing coincidence. While the author was preparing this piece he started to see mention of something that he’d never seen before – to wit, Genie Energy Ltd.
Genie Energy has been granted oil exploratory rights in those parts in Syria that Israel captured in the 1967 war:
Last month Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of Genie Energy, a US oil company, announced that it had found considerable reserves of oil under the Golan. Genie’s chief geologist in Israel, Yuval Bartov, said the company believed the reservoir had the “potential of billions of barrels”.
International law experts say any proceeds from such a find in the Golan should revert to Syria, but Israel has so far indicated it will ignore its legal obligations.
Central to this enterprise, therefore, is an unstable Syria, as an article headlined “Israel exploits Syrian chaos to plan looting of Golan oil” explores (here), and central to an unstable Syria is the continued ISIS psyop, and Western-backed mercenary invasion.
That being said, we won’t just let it rest at “Israel exploits Syria”; who are the individuals behind it? Well, amongst the major shareholders of Genie Energy are a certain Lord Jacob Rothschild, and one Rupert Murdoch, and a fellow going by the name of Dick Cheney (see here and here). Investigating further, the author was pleasantly surprised to find out that Genie Energy’s logo is a lamp. Of course, this must be referring to Aladdin of the Arabian Nights – or perhaps ‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Muḥammad III, who was a leader of the medieval Nizari Ismailis, or the Order of Assassins – basically Mystery School adherents – who were intrinsically linked with the spread of the Crusader-era wave of Gnosticism into Europe via the various orders of monastic knight. This isn’t an idea that the author has invented. The reader should obtain a copy of the “Man who would be King” (John Huston’s film version is excellent) by Rudyard Kipling. Two Victorian Englishmen venture into “Kafiristan” to find that the High Priests are fellow Freemasons. The fiction represents real ideas, history, that the Brethren had, by the 19th century, cultivated about themselves. As it happens, we don’t have the space to go much further than that into the similarities between Islam and Christianity in terms of Luciferianism, but the Islamic Djinn, or Genie, is what one might refer to as a Lucifer Spirit in Freemasonic (Templar) mythology. He is a carrier of the fire of knowledge – hence the rays coming off the lamp in Genie Energy’s logo.
And so this Genie Energy company is a perfect emblem to remind us that the Islam vs West culture war is controlled from both ends by the same people, and in exactly the same way that all the full spectrum dominance scenarios covered in this article are. It’s the modus operandi of the people who rule, and rule exclusively for their own benefit. They won’t be stopped until people abandon their control systems, and stop buying into and being exploited by the fake confliction of deliberately exaggerated or fabricated divisions.
Remember the Tory 2015 battle bus? It has been alleged that it was a get-around whereby, coming under national expenses, it could be inserted into a constituency campaign without incurring a local overspend. Well, although it looks as if they are going to get away with this, it won’t do anything to dispel the notion people have about the lowdown sneakiness that the Tories, the Government’s right-hand puppet, would resort to to win an election. The issue was covered at FBEL recently; please read here and pay attention to the idea of the Government/Tory overlap, and decide for yourself just who is really pulling the strings (it isn’t Theresa May).
In 2017, the Tories are pretty sure that they are going to win the General Election, but they still need to turn their criminal cunning to the task of making sure that a lot of Tory/Government apparatchiks get elected to law-making capacity on the back of a delusion that lots of British people are currently suffering from – that being the idea that Theresa May and her pack of jackals will properly respond to the will of the British people as expressed in the 2016 EU Referendum.
Any modicum of investigation that the reader might want to do on his or own behalf will only confirm that the Tories are intent on delivering a Fake Brexit. Indeed, while the author was researching this article, he noticed that some Tory candidates don’t even mention Brexit in their publicity. Their main selling point is strength of a majority versus a coalition government. They really are leaving it for people to assume that they will deliver Brexit. What they are doing is like not giving a straight answer in court, and it’s for not being caught later in a perjury – but it’s lying by omission, and the author suspects that a tactic of omitting Brexit in candidate literature has come down as an order from the same people who gave you the Tory battle bus.
And why wouldn’t it? After all, all prospective Tory candidate selection lists have been dictated to local associations by the Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). This is a change to the (supposedly) usual practice where the members at each constituency coal face do their own thing. There appears to have been relatively little Conservatroid (grassroots Tory membership) pushback to the “emergency rules” – which is not a surprise in the least to the author. What the new situation means is that the CCHQ can foist a placeman into a seat. Yes, the local association does, in most cases, get to choose a final candidate from a CCHQ-imposed list, but we all know how it would work in reality, don’t we? Pompous selection committee Chair gets phone call from CCHQ: “do what you can, eh, Medford, there’s a good chap?”; provincial heads get turned by Etonian schooling, spad to George or Dave career history – and Mrs Leadbeater insists; winks and nudges (and other things) between Roger and Gerald down at the lodge or at the tennis club – a favour owed by one legend-in-his-own lunchtime Fred Perry to another; et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so forth. Even for an astute child, which the author was at the time, how things worked in the hierarchy of Tory suburbia was pretty much spelled out in lots of seventies sitcoms, and nothing much has changed – not for lots of hereditary Tories, who really need to be rocked out of their time-warp-protective-bubble – and not only so far as joining the Liberal Democrats.
This article is hopefully going to be the first of a few looking at who is being selected by the Tories so that, if voters do choose to elect them, the author can say that they have been warned. What you’ll find again and again as we look at these people is that they come from the same political class. All but two in the lists below are in “strategic advice”, Public Relations & Public Affairs – much the same thing except one might just call the latter government propaganda, “communications”; and so they are experts at using psychology to exploit people. They “consult” or “advise”, so it’s safe to say that there is not a real wealth-creator to be found in the whole list. Most of the candidates that will feature in this article will have been special advisors to Ministers or connected to governmental departments; and with their ties to industry, they really do prove that corporate-government does not stem from the imagination of conspiracy theorists. It’s not difficult to understand that their own best interests would lie in the continuance of corporate-government (or fascism). Because they make careers of globalist “science” – the art of confidence trickery – we can tell the direction of these candidates from where we can see they are coming from. Some of them might believe that they want to represent their constituencies – even the ones who have been parachuted in (and the author will indicate where this has happened as far as he knows) – but their deployment and task is for to shore up Parliament against those it is meant to represent.
The first group of candidates are standing in constituencies where the Tories came behind Labour or the Lib Dems in 2015. In order to win this time, they will need to steal from that percentage of the electorate who voted UKIP last time. These candidates should serve as a warning to people who think that lending a UKIP vote for the sake of Brexit is a noble thing to do. The author’s advice is just don’t do it, in these cases or any other. Do not vote Tory under any circumstances.
In the following list the candidate’s name is followed by the constituency he or she has been selected to stand in, followed by some biographical information (which in most cases has been copied directly from the sources here, here, here and here).
James Wild; North Norfolk.
A former public affairs manager at T-Mobile, and account director at Hanover Communications (dealing in “reputation, communications and public affairs”). A one-time special adviser to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon
(Incidentally, it appears that Leave.eu’s dubious “Brexit Alliance” campaign has asked UKIP voters to back James Wild, and without really explaining Wild’s Brexit credentials – indicating that it is not to be trusted, and starts to resemble a sly way of creating a Tory majority. We’ll be looking at it in an upcoming article).
Mag Powell-Chandler; Birmingham Northfield.
One time special adviser of Business Secretary Greg Clarke; also worked as a special adviser in Downing Street under David Cameron
Anthony Calvert: Wakefield.
In public affairs; “Calvert Communications”
Clark Vasey: Workington.
Head of corporate affairs (Public Relations) for Fujitsu UK
Daniel Hamilton; Stockport.
FTI Consulting; previously worked as a senior lobbyist at Bell Pottinger (“political, government and public affairs consultancy services”).
Caroline Squire; Birmingham Edgbaston.
Previously in a political and regulatory team at the well-known City-based lobbying firm Finsbury (“provider of strategic communications in crisis, financial, public affairs, reputation building and digital”); was also a public affairs adviser at Sainsbury’s.
Joy Morrissey; Ealing Central and Acton.
Worked for MPs Will Quince and Angie Bray, and is with the Think Tank, Centre for Social Justice.
The next list is of candidates who have been selected to stand in seats that are extremely safe for the Tories.
Kemi Badenoch; Saffron Walden.
A parachutist who failed to get selected Hampstead and Kilburn. A current London Assembly member, and previously with the Spectator.
Alex Burghart; Brentwood and Ongar.
Parachutist. Mrs May’s social justice policy adviser.
Neil o’Brien; Harborough.
Parachutist. Advises the Prime Minister on the northern powerhouse and industrial strategy.
Bim Afolomi; Hitchen & Harpenden.
A parachutist on account of being a Northampton-based HSBC banker, old Etonian, and once worked for George Osborne
Vicky Ford; Chelmsford.
(Note, Stephen Parkinson, the Prime Minister’s political secretary, and Chris Brannigan, Number 10’s director of government relations who liaises with businesses – both men known to this site through “battle bus” fame – were also on short lists. Parkinson for Saffron Walden, and Brannigan for Aldershot. Obviously, Parkinson failed in his endeavour, but FBEL will monitor any further attempts to beknight this character. No news can be found about Brannigan).
Finally, and perhaps as good as won, is the seat of City of Chester, where Labour hold a slender lead over the Tories. Standing in this is Will Gallagher who was a former special advisor of Transport Secretary Chris Grayling at the Ministry of Justice. Gallagher is originally from North Wales, but qualifies as being parachuted on the basis of being a onetime Ministry staffer.
To finish for the time being – and this could be a Richard Littlejohn “you couldn’t make it up” column footer – is the story of the selection of a candidate by Exeter Tory Association. At first there had been complaints about candidates being parachuted in. Eventually a James Taghdissian, who had been a candidate in 2015 for Cardiff West, was selected – at a meeting in the town’s Masonic Hall.
Apparently, Taghdissian also appears to work in Exeter (a lawyer), but this case reinforces an impression that the author has gained from the study that led to this article: CCHQ has probably always, from election to election – and in a far-ranging way – done its utmost to get a favourite from a cabal of the preferred parachuted in to a constituency to have them selected above local candidates who genuinely and rightly feel that they would be more suitable (and have had the support of local associations). Sometimes there might be a happy accident whereby the parachutist comes from the constituency, but he’s still imposed. The electorate, in its individual parts across the nation (and the author included), doesn’t notice the bigger picture of control, but it would indeed be naïve to think that the Establishment, whichever LibLabCon party it had had installed in office, would chance its retention of a grip on power to any randomness like local association candidate selections. Representation in Parliament, like so many other aspects of the freedom you are told you have, is only an illusion.