Category Archives: Behaviour Compliance

Examining injustice and the police state

Westminster Bridge jump woman rescued (a week later), and Fire boat on drill shock

And so, as reported at FBEL in the previous article, since the Westminster Bridge incident – where we are told he sustained an injury to his foot/leg – Andrei Burnaz has been seen in public; and the author hopes that the reader is as glad as he was to see him looking in rude health. Unfortunately, there is still no news of Andreea Cristea, Andrei’s girlfriend, and the woman who we are told fell off of Westminster Bridge. Naturally, because a whole nation was encouraged to be touched by this couple’s predicament (what with their impending nuptials, and all), and to be concerned for her well being, FBEL too is wondering about her injuries, and the state of her recovery (especially since discovering she was in a coma – see abovementioned article). In fact, such was the unease that it has prompted a revisit to a topic initially broached in the first article at FBEL about the Westminster Bridge incident (which can be read here).

Let’s start with a few facts, and for many people the BBC is the authority (and not Fake News), so let us measure by its gauge. On an infographic published by that august body of integrity, it tells us that at 14:40:18, on the 22nd March 2017, the car supposedly driven by a man named “Masood” that “sped” northbound across Westminster Bridge “hits [a] group [of people] and [a] woman falls”. Fortunately this plunge is captured by a camera that, by the direction of its scope, must have been placed on the Millbank Tower* situated further west along the river.

The author was looking for tide timetables, and could only find one for Putney Bridge, which said that on the day of the incident, at the time stated above, the river was minutes away from the fullest extent of the low tide, meaning that the woman in the river would have been carried downstream, and to the location from whence she was eventually said to have been rescued. The author doesn’t have enough information to understand the strength of the current.

It seems that this woman was unconscious in the water pretty much from the start of her misadventure – a witness told RT (source) that he saw a body floating face down, and the impression he gives is that it was one of the first visual prompts he received to tell him that something abnormal had happened. We could definitely understand this state of affairs had she been struck by the vehicle, but the author previously concluded that the best explanation for what is shown in the footage is a person, we are told a woman, who had climbed over the rail, and then had leapt of her own accord. This conclusion was arrived at by noticing how the descent appears to begin after the car has driven past the point of its commencement, and how there is a horizontal force component in the trajectory of the woman as she plunges into the river below. It has to be said, the corporate-media has never committed to a definitive explanation, but instead when dealing with the matter often presents two options: either she was pushed by the car, or she leapt in to avoid it.

There is a clue in the video footage that confirms the time for the specific moment of the fall given by the BBC, and this is the appearance of the Thames Clipper apparently moving between the Westminster side of the river and the London Eye. The company timetable (the October 2016 version, now superseded from April 2017, but still available on the web) states that the westbound service had a 14:39 departure time for the Westminster Pier, and a 14:45 departure time at the London Eye pier, where the service terminated. The eastbound service had the same times at the same places, suggesting that the westbound turned into the eastbound to then depart from Bankside at 14:55. This could be important information, because in a film that purports to show the woman being rolled out of the river by a Fire Rescue vessel (please view it on the Mail page in which it is embedded: here), the Thames Clipper cannot be viewed at the London Eye pier. In other words, this rescue is taking place after 14:45, meaning by the time it is being recorded on film the woman has spent nearly 5 minutes in the water.

There were other images (also viewable on the abovementioned Mail article, as well as the first FBEL article) that showed that it was the City Cruises flag ship, Millennium Diamond, involved in mounting a rescue in the first instance. This was confirmed by the river cruise company in question:

Kyle Haughton, Managing Director at City Cruises said: ‘City Cruises’ Millennium Diamond was in the area of the incident at the time and worked alongside London’s emergency services to support in the rescue efforts of a woman in the water: once alerted by people on the bridge, the ship’s Captain reacted fast on spotting her, he halted the boat in order to hold her out of the water and stop her from being carried any further by the current.

‘The emergency services were called immediately and arrived within minutes to take over the rescue operation.

From this we discover that the Millennium Diamond spotted the woman first. The City Cruises timetable (Sep 2016 to May 2017) suggests that a boat was due to depart the London Eye pier at 14:50, so if the flagship of the fleet is used in such a routine way (rather than purely being a charter boat, which is the impression that the author gets), the timetable suggests that the boat came across the woman as it was adhering to this departure time. And in that case, it could be that the rescue did not begin until minutes or seconds approaching 14:50.

City Cruises reported that it took “minutes” for the Fire Rescue boat to arrive – which then appeared to take quite a lot of trouble to manoeuvre the woman into a scoop. Please look at the images of this in the Mail article. At first the Fire boat is parallel to the river bank – we can tell because of the white cruise boat in the background, which is on the Westminster side of the river. When we see the Fire boat crew positioning the woman into a scoop on the side of the vessel, it has been turned across the river so that it is perpendicular with the bank. In the first frame of the film, the boat is again parallel, and notably, the woman is in the scoop. The author has seen a report that the woman was finally retrieved from the water “just before 3pm”, and can well believe it from observing the palaver performed by the crew of the Fire service boat – which is discussed below.

From the still images already mentioned we can tell that the woman is unconscious at time of rescue, and written reports in corporate-media bear this out. This means that the woman may have spent nearly 20 minutes in the water, and may have been unconscious for all of that time. We can probably definitely say that she spent at least 5 to 10 minutes in the water until efforts were afoot to rescue her. We can very likely say that she spent a matter of minutes after that being unconscious while the Fire Rescue boat arrived. If the author has to be frank, he was surprised to hear that this woman had been taken out of the water alive. Indeed, the following is a caption from one of the pictures in the above linked-to Daily Mail article (emphasis added): “A fire services boat is launched to help a City Cruises crew rescue Ms Cristea’s body from the River Thames”. Then there’s also this in the main body of the article: “But despite her harrowing ordeal she managed to survive the attack after a City Cruises crew spotted her body floating downstream”.

Bear this in mind as we now look at the effectiveness of the rescue. Guidance to civilians for rescuing people from water talks about a necessity for a rescuer to enter the water to extract an unconscious victim. This seems to be intuitive as there would be an urgent requirement to perform CPR. Delays to doing this are crucial in terms of determining whether or not a victim suffers serious injury, and by what degree, and it occurs to the author that messing about with poles and scoops might not provide as timely an intervention as a man on a rope would. Having looked into similar cases before, the author very much suspects that company and government regulations adhere to the “stand-on-the-bank-let-them-drown” culture that seems to have been cultivated in the British emergency services these past 30 years. Be that as it may, there is a Lifeboat on the Thames, and it has a low deck so that crew can reach into the water to extract people from it. The author was also concerned to notice that when in the scoop, the woman’s head is drooping backwards and clearly not supported, and also wonders if it is feasible for the unconscious state of the woman to have been caused by an impact with the water whereby an injury was also sustained to the neck. Admittedly, the author can’t judge whether or not the equipment used for the “rescue” might not be adequate in terms avoiding the exacerbation of any injury, but can’t help but wonder, generally, if the equipment is actually meant for retrieving dead bodies.

It is important to notice that we don’t have an image of the woman being positioned exactly in the scoop, and thus there is no visual conformation that the object on the end of the poles in the still images is the body in the scoop in the film of her rescue. In the first frame of the film she is already in place, and seemingly not submerged but resting on top of the water. Furthermore, there is a point in the film where the camera operator, after zooming in on the body as it is lifted clear of the water, inexplicably pans away from the rescue attempt and the screen is filled with the Thames and some of the hull of the boat. Previous experience suggests that when, during coverage of events which count on sleight of hand to fool an audience, this “cameraman’s droop” occurs, then there is something going on that we’re not meant to see. The author did notice that there is something very odd with the hair on this rescued body. Long hair, when wet, sometimes sticks to the face, but in this case it all falls neatly and vertically downwards. Of course, the accidental way that hair falls when lifted out of water is no indicator of anything. But, the author also noticed that the hair doesn’t appear to hang down from the head in the same kind of abundance when the body was raised so that it shifted to lay on its side. While, the author remains reluctant to jump to an accusation that this Fire Rescue boat had a dummy in its scoop, and was filmed emulating a rescue – which could have occurred at any time; note the City Cruises vessel is not in the film footage – there is a crucial piece of information that now comes to light to tempt it (actually, the information was sitting in the corporate-media reports unnoticed by the author until now). This is from the same Daily Mail article from whence comes all the other material previously cited (again, note the tendency to refer to a body rather than a person):

The staff, on the Millennium Diamond pleasure boat, could not fish her body out of the water but thankfully managed to alert a fire service boat on a ‘realisation exercise’ nearby.

This is very significant. The Fire Rescue vessel was in the vicinity doing a drill. And so, it was presumably sent to the scene by a central controller that had received the alarm from the crew of the Millennium Diamond and, with proximity being the rationale for doing so, sent instead of any other vessel, including a Lifeboat, to deal with the object in the water, so that the civilian vessel could hand over to the authorities without thinking any more of it. Crucially for the conjurors who stage false flags, people observing this rescue through corporate-media reports could potentially be fed imagery of this boat on exercise and conflate it with the story of the rescue of the woman who had fallen from the bridge. It is a remote possibility, but it is much too early to declare it anything more than that.

In the meantime – and to finish – we’ll content ourselves with covering another story about a woman who was fished out of the Thames on the 29th March. This happened a few hours before there was going to be a commemoration of the “terror attack” of the week before. A Daily Mail article informs us that a Lifeboat (see above image) was on hand to extract the woman who would be “dealt with under the Mental Health Act” – interesing in itself. The report also tells us that the police were not treating the incident as suspicious, but that shouldn’t stop us from doing the same. Terror incidents are to be exploited by the Establishment as fully as possible, and this includes hitting the same nerve over again. And then sometimes there might be a need to tie up loose ends by encouraging the forging of associations in the public consciousness between the terror incident and what might seem to the alert and awake to be totally unrelated events. The very least this new incident can teach us is that, if they want to, the authorities can get the Lifeboat on scene at Westminster Bridge to whip someone out of the drink before there are any tears.

 

*Coincidentally, this footage appears to have been generated by the BBC, or it obtained some kind of right of ownership, because when other outlets have used it, the state-broadcaster receives an attribution. It appears to have been taken from the roof of Millbank Tower, and the author would like to know if the BBC has a camera permanently stationed there, or has to assign a cameraman to the location whenever it needs footage.

Establishment desperation in Stoke manifests as witch hunt

As the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, attempts to get elected to represent the people of Stoke Central, the Establishment has once again shown how it can move various elements of its control structure in a coordinated operation to try to steal the success that he and the party deserve. While the LibLabCon Establishment banks on Tory dominance to steer Britain through “Fake Brexit” (see here for an explanation), the Labour Party is extremely vulnerable. And while Liverpool voted to remain in the EU, and so might well be a hot bed of Labourite obstinacy in a way that is pertinent to this story – as the reader shall see – Stoke has been called the Brexit capital of the country. The Stoke by-election threatens to prove predictions that, as Britons realise that they must hold Westminster’s feet to the fire to ensure an end to EU membership, places like Stoke that were once Labour strongholds will become tough for the party to retain in elections. And one thing is for sure, it does look like Labour and Establishment strategists know that UKIP cannot be denied in Stoke Central through ideas; this is evident by the way that the UKIP candidate has been subjected to an Alinsky-prescribed process of marginalisation, mud-slinging and ridicule. As we examine a small portion of this odious campaign, the author shouldn’t need to remind the reader that decent people cannot allow such methodology to succeed so that Establishment placemen are elevated to positions of office to maintain the vested interests of a very few.

First of all there was the dangerous piece of fake news non-journalism executed by Channel 4s Michael Crick and other corporate-media operatives. Crick and company basically gave the go-ahead for any mentally ill individual (or political activist) – and it turns out that there were two – to try and intimidate Paul Nuttall at his home in Stoke. Crick published images of the house on social media – the actual address also made it online (an example) – and at the same time accused Nuttall of fraud in relation to his attempt to become an MP in Stoke. It was tantamount to the following invitation: here’s the bad guy, go and exact justice.

There should not have been any fuss. Relying on the ignorance of corporate-media victims, Crick and many others gave the impression that, as Nuttall had not been living at the house while submitting the address on the by-election candidature application form as his residency, then he had done something illegal. The author has checked. The form for candidature asks for a home address. It doesn’t ask where the candidate is living.  For many people, a home address is not the same as the place they are living. A whole sub-class of live-in landlords (Owner Occupiers) have home addresses at shared accommodation that they don’t actually reside in themselves; they live elsewhere. At the time UKIP made it clear that the party had acquired the property pre-application as a place for Nuttall to move to so that he could live in Stoke. If Nuttall’s name was on the paperwork, then it was an address associated with him; hence he was entitled to call it his home address. However, this issue was placed in the hands of the police, and it’s an old trick. It means that the corporate-media can refer to “an ongoing investigation” at every opportunity to give the impression that Nuttall is a wrong-doer.

That being said, the scheme has failed to disturb UKIP’s ascendency in Stoke, and so the Establishment has accelerated an issue with regards to Nuttall’s attendance at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground in 1989 to see Liverpool Football Club in a FA Cup semi final. Of course, this was the occasion when 96 people were crushed to death in the crowd: the Hillsborough disaster.

We’re going to begin this component with some literary analysis. The following is from a Guardian article entitled “Ukip leader Paul Nuttall denies lying about being at Hillsborough disaster”.

Look at the first line, echoing almost exactly the title:

Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has denied that he has lied about being a Hillsborough survivor

Lie is a strong word: a deliberately untrue statement usually made for malicious purposes. So far, the Guardian article makes it look like there is a piece of evidence by which Nuttall has been discovered and has had to react to. But look at the opening sentence in its entirety:

Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has denied that he has lied about being a Hillsborough survivor after a number of people questioned his claim to have been present on the day of the disaster.

Let’s examine this. It says that Nuttall’s denial came after people questioned his claim. The Guardian article then presents this questioning in more detail, and while we examine it, the reader should notice a crucial thing: there is not one outright accusation in the whole litany. And so it appears that Nuttall couldn’t have denied lying, because no one has accused him of it. Instead, they have only themselves made insinuations, or they have contributed to the one that the Guardian is making overall in the article. One doesn’t have to defend oneself from insinuation; insinuation is not to be taken seriously in law, and in fact is to be treated with suspicion. But a cunningly crafted piece of fake news can make insinuation look respectable.

Nuttall was 12 at the time of the disaster, and was a pupil at Savio high school in Bootle, Liverpool. One of his former teachers, a Roman Catholic priest, has told the Guardian that the school believed it had been aware of the identities of every boy who had been at Hillsborough in order to help them through a difficult period, and that Nuttall was not among them.

Notice that there is no name. This means that the source could be invented; additionally, if a source is to give evidence understanding he is to remain nameless, what’s to prevent him from providing false witness? And if Nuttall wasn’t being counselled by Roman Catholic priests, then so what? Yes, maybe it is unusual in the UK that someone doesn’t want to have the State or the Church in all of their business, but believe it or not, there are people who feel that way.

A fellow pupil at the school who says he has been a friend of Nuttall for decades said the Ukip leader had never mentioned being there. “I have been very good friends with Paul for over 25 years,” he said, adding that during that time they had “never spoken” about Hillsborough.

Again no name. The author suggests that if this friend was such a good friend, then he wouldn’t have had provided the Guardian with the material to do a hit piece.

Unsurprisingly, the writer of the Guardian article admits that all of this yet amounts to nothing – which could be an act of prudence with a mind to legalities, we shouldn’t wonder, for there really is not a jot of evidence, and no one who could have any knowledge of the matter has accused Paul Nuttall of lying:

While the teacher and friend expressed surprise that Nuttall has said he was at Hillsborough, their comments do not prove that he was not present.

The Guardian article also mentions the MP for Bootle of 25 years, Joe Benton. We are supposed to believe that if Nuttall didn’t like to talk about Hillsborough with his long time friend and Catholic Priests, then he should have confided about it with his political adversary during two general election campaigns.

Benton… said that to the best of his knowledge Nuttall had not mentioned Hillsborough when he stood against him as Ukip’s candidate in the 2005 and 2010 general elections.

Nuttall had not mentioned being present at Hillsborough during any public meeting they had both attended, nor in his campaign literature, Benton said, despite the strength of feeling within the constituency about the police negligence that led to the deaths and the subsequent official cover-up that led to Liverpool fans being blamed for the disaster.

Once again, however hard the reader looks for it, he or she will not see an accusation that Nuttall was not at Hillsborough, and therefore must be lying about it. The reader might notice that, unlike the other two non-accusations we saw, this one is implying that there was a moral imperative for Nuttall to have mentioned Hillsborough if he had indeed been present. Here we are moving into slightly different territory. This is actual insinuation that Nuttall wasn’t at Hillsborough. It says that strength of feeling was such that Nuttall should have mentioned his presence at Hillsborough if he was really there. Please notice, Nuttall apparently didn’t tell Benton that he wasn’t at Hillsborough either, so one wonders if any occasion actually arose for the subject to be broached as Benton seems to think it did. In that case, is Benton lying? Can we trust him to tell the truth even if Nuttall did mention something? What we do know for sure is that here is a Labour politician proactively contributing to the smear. And UKIP were pretty sure that Labour were engaged in dirty tricks when they issued a statement about the matter; this is how the Guardian piece here being studied presents it:

Any claim that… [Nuttall] was not at Hillsborough was “totally false and highly defamatory”, the statement said, adding: “Paul was indeed at Hillsborough. He attended the match with his father and other family members. For political opponents to suggest otherwise and for left-wing media organisations to promote such claims constitutes a new low for the Labour party and its associates.”

Consider this statement: any claim is highly defamatory. A quick look at the defamation law (here) confirms what the author instinctively thought was true: “A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth”. So the burden of proof is with the defendant (that is, the party being sued for the defamation). This is probably why no one will come out and make a clear allegation – and on Twitter the author has asked the broadcaster/author/whatever Paul Mason to clarify what he meant when he published a statement claiming that Nuttall was a “lying fantasist”. At the time of writing there has been no reply.

Notice that UKIP also states that political opponents are merely engaged in making suggestions – as Benton clearly did. In fact it should be quite clear to a rational person that Hillsborough is being used as a political football. And so it is a shame to see that certain people connected to organisations representing or supporting the victims’ families are also allowing themselves to become involved in this; please consider the following, also from the same Guardian piece:

Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Families Support Group, said she was surprised that Nuttall had never offered to assist with their decades-long campaign to overturn the cover-up that led to Liverpool football fans being blamed for the 96 deaths.

“I haven’t heard anything about him being at the match,” she said. “Has he given a statement to the police, who have said they want to hear from everyone who was there? He can’t say he hasn’t heard that the police want to take statements from everyone who was in the Leppings Lane, as it’s been all over local and national media.”

This is at yet another level – and it starts to get scary. Mrs Aspinall is saying that Nuttall should have acted, not just made a statement, in order to prove himself. This is in fact the beginning of authoritarianism (and it’s ironic that she chooses the example of failing to report to police). One thinks of totalitarian dictatorships where if one does not proactively display support for the system, then one is a deviant, and worthy of suspicion – and worse than that, a criminal to be disposed of as the State sees fit. Please recall the histrionics displayed by the North Korean people when Kim Jong Il died – all out of fear of being accused of not grieving enough for the departed Dear Leader. The author begins to wonder if there is a sense of political ownership of Hillsborough so that it has become an issue of sacrilege that the “enemy” – Nuttall was a Tory in his first political incarnation – could have suffered too. The abovementioned Paul Mason did make it clear on Twitter that there are political tribal issues at stake:

UKIP funder Aaron Banks hates the working class so much he says Hillsboro “just a disaster” – but it was part of Thatcher’s war on us

And so in that case, the author suggests that what we are looking at is a politically motivated witch hunt that uses Hillsborough to generate moral panic. To explain: the moral orthodoxy in this case is related to the elevation of Hillsborough victims into martyrs through efforts by police to scapegoat fans. Nuttall, by apparently telling a lie connected to it, is cheapening that moral standard. Thus there must be fury, and alarm – and the context in which to hunt and eradicate the morally abnormal culprit. An historical witch hunt had the appearance of being about reaction to spiritual deviance on the surface, but underneath it was an abuse of power; an opportunity to get rid of a threat to the power without anyone questioning the illegitimacy of the act – to assassinate without comeback. This is what has been happening to Nuttall. The reader will get to read more from people connected with Hillsborough groups shortly, and more of an opportunity to observe the role being played by these individuals, and perhaps to decide if they too are politically motivated. One hopes that they are unwitting pawns, and as such it might be worthwhile for them to contemplate that the peril of being exploited – especially to try and shore up a dying political party and system – is losing sympathy for their cause. (It occurs to the author that it might not have been possible to exploit Hillsborough in this way if the fault for the tragedy, as appears to be the case in actual official inquest, hadn’t been entirely laid at the door of the State through its particular actors and officials. There will be further investigation into this at a later time).

The next development in this Nuttall-at-Hillsborough saga has to do with content of his website. Responsibility for this has since been claimed by an assistant – who did the decent thing and offered to resign – and Nuttall has admitted to its being inaccurate, and also his error in not checking his website himself. Indeed, Nuttall did not try to pretend certain information was true on first being confronted with it. That the man did such a thing in the context of the witch hunt against him shows character that makes the notion of his being dishonest rather implausable. And on the contrary, depsite what is a cut and dry matter, it is the corporate-media that continues to be dishonest.

The following are two extracts from a MailOnline article (here). The first appears in the body of the article, and the second is in a caption of an image:

1- Paul Nuttall was “forced to make a humiliating confession that a blog post on his website claiming he lost ‘close personal friends’ at the stadium tragedy was incorrect.”

2 – Earlier this week Paul Nuttall was forced into making a humiliating confession that he did not lost (sic) ‘close personal friends’ in the 1989 stadium tragedy – despite claiming he did in a blog post on his website

Because Paul Nuttall has admitted ultimate responsibility for the content of his website, the corporate-media can probably get away with this (by which is meant the promotion of the notion that the claim was personally made by Nuttall). It isn’t in the spirit of the truth, but the corporate-media isn’t interested in that. The despicable aspect of the maintenance of this evolved deception is that it facilitates reaction that perpetuates the moral panic referred to above (and so the witch hunt can continue). Consider the following from a Guardian article entitled “Hillsborough families dismayed by Paul Nuttall’s ‘insulting’ admission”. Each extract is followed by the author’s own brief comments:

Margaret Aspinall, the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, whose 18-year-old son, James, died in the disaster, described the admission as “appalling”.

“There’s a lot of people who survived that day who did lose personal friends. It’s devastating for them because they’re still suffering and for the guy now to backtrack is appalling,” she said.

We’ve heard from Mrs Aspinall before. This appears to be an attack on Paul Nuttall citing incorrect information as a basis for it.

Sue Roberts, secretary of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, whose brother Graham died at the match, said she had found Nuttall’s admission hard to understand.

“Anybody who was at Hillsborough, that was bad enough anyway,” she said. “To have actually lost close personal friends or, worse still, family members – it’s the thing that’s defined our lives for the last 28 years.

“People are still tormented by their loss. To actually try and say that you’ve lost close personal friends and then to backtrack and say I didn’t, I can’t understand how anybody could be that cruel and callous.

“This latest hurtful statement that he didn’t lose close personal friends – people have now got to come forward.”

Look at what appears to happening in this extract. Again, there is an attack on Paul Nuttall based on something that isn’t true. This is executed in very emotive language, and it is vulnerable to accusations that it is for the purpose of inspiring, by guilt, someone to perform the act that Sue Roberts appears to be desirous of – that is, someone should inform on Paul Nuttall. Again, connotations of a Stasi-society.

Steve Kelly, a member of the Hillsborough Justice campaign whose brother Michael died in the Leppings Lane end, urged the under-pressure Ukip leader to provide further evidence if he was at Hillsborough that day.

“He’s claimed that he can back all this up. Well, if that’s the case, that’s all he’s got to do to clear his name,” he said.

“Clear his name” -  as if Paul Nuttall has actually committed a crime.

It would be fitting to end this article with Paul Nuttall’s own words as delivered at the recent  UKIP spring conference.

This is two-fold, actually. Firstly, I take the blame for the fact that I failed to check what was up on my website in my name, that was my fault and I apologise.

But I will not apologise for what is a coordinated, cruel and almost evil smear campaign that has been directed at me.

It is based on lies from sources who have not been named. It has been a tough week for me but I will not allow them to break me and I will not allow them to break Ukip.

 

Dear Detective Superintendent Nick May

Detective Superintendent Nick May is the individual heading an investigation into the Christmas 2013 murder of Valerie Graves in Bosham, West Sussex. The following is an open letter addressed to him. In this letter he is asked to respond, but the author is under no illusion that he would do such a thing. In fact, the letter is supposed to focus any reader’s attention on the flawed premise by which the inhabitants of Bosham and its environs are being subjected to an influx of police – seemingly on a continuous operation until all targets have received a hit – to exploit the discomfort engendered by a blanket suspicion of guilt cast upon all male individuals over 16 years of age. Perhaps more importantly, the reader is once again directed to how police are conniving to achieve their objective. In a previous article, “The Great Bosham DNA Harvest…”, the author could come to no other conclusion that the police were collecting a consensual DNA database – by deception, of course, which is what was meant by the above use of the word “conniving”, because there would be no other way to do it. Even though we are anticipating no official reply, the reader may well discover his or her own good idea about how each question in the text below could be answered given the contextual information supplied into the lead up to each, and therefore form his or her own idea as to whether support would be lent to or detracted from the author’s previous conclusion. Of course, authoritative answers could allay all suspicions, but one also suspects them never to be forthcoming.

 

Dear Detective Superintendent Nick May

On 6th April the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team is going to recommence an effort to collect DNA samples and thumbprints from men in Bosham and a surrounding area that incorporates the village of Fishbourne. According to numbers issued by yourself, potentially 3000 men will have police arrive on their doorstep to be asked to “volunteer” – despite the fact that they had already passed on the opportunity to do so during a first sweep made by police. That being mentioned, I would actually like to put aside the issue that what police are in fact doing is coercion, because there are some particular questions that I would like you to answer about the Valerie Graves murder investigation without getting sidetracked into a broader discussion.

While I would never personally volunteer my DNA-identification to the state under any circumstances, it occurred to me that other people who are being targeted by police might decide to cooperate if they had higher levels of confidence regarding your investigation, and a good idea that any sacrifice they made would be worth the while. For that reason, I would very much appreciate it if you could answer the questions I put to you in this letter (which by necessity are prefaced with contextual information but highlighted themselves in bold font).

According to a police press release of 1st January 2014 [all releases cited are from http://www.valeriegravesmurder.com/media.asp] a post mortem carried out on Valerie Graves “revealed she died from significant head and facial injuries.” However, in an article published on the online version of the Independent newspaper on 3rd January 2014, which conveyed the news of this examination, if your investigators knew the cause of death (which the press release claimed was the case. incidentally), then it appears as if they were unable to, or would not elaborate on what sort of weapon was used in the attack:

Ms Graves was found in the rear bedroom but police declined to say if a weapon was used in the attack, or if she had been in bed at the time.

Valerie Graves death: Police investigate the murder mystery unsettling Bosham – a real-life Midsomer; Paul Peachey; 03 January 2014; Source.

Much later, according to a press release of 17th January 2014, your investigators revealed that a hammer had been found, and that they were linking it to the killing of Valerie Graves – the actual words used were as follows: “Detectives have released these photos of a hammer which they believe is the weapon used to kill Valerie Graves in Bosham.” It appears, however – and according to a retrospective piece published by the MailOnline at the beginning of 2015 – that the hammer had been found at about the same time police were receiving post mortem results:

The New Year’s Day discovery of the murder weapon — a 16oz claw hammer found just 870 yards from the house [in which the murder happened].

Mystery of the Midsomer Murderer: It was a savage killing that baffled police. A middle-class mother bludgeoned to death in her bed in an idyllic village. One year on, ALL local men are to be DNA tested; Barbara Davies; 02 January 2015; Source.

Additionally, in a press release dated 18th March 2014, you were quoted as saying the following: “we know that a hammer, found nearby in Hoe Lane, was used by the offender”.

My first and second questions are ones that arise from all the preceding information: in their searching of the close vicinity around the house in which the murder took place, were your investigators hoping, or expecting to find a hammer as a murder weapon given the wounding that Valerie Graves was subjected to? Secondly, were the particular wounds to Valerie Graves indicative of an attack with that specific weapon – for instance, were there depressed skull fractures in a pattern resembling the traits of that particular claw hammer?

Later on in 2014, a certain result heralded as a “breakthrough” was announced by your investigative team, and in a press release of 22nd October 2014, it was told of how “forensic scientists have obtained a limited DNA profile for the suspect”. Interestingly, it and subsequent press releases (as far as I can see) did not seem to link the suspect’s DNA with the proposed murder weapon, and in fact looking through the reportage from the media at the time it appears to me that it was very much left for the public to assume that the suspect’s DNA had been extracted from that source [see note *].

To answer my next question, please would you confirm that the claw hammer reportedly found in January 2014 was indeed the source from which was extracted the DNA sample you are now using as a control to contrast against all the DNA profiles you are collecting from Bosham and Fishbourne males?

Secondly, if the suspect’s DNA sample was extracted from the hammer, please would you confirm whether or not Valerie Graves’ DNA was also found on that weapon? If the hammer could not be linked to Valerie Graves either through DNA or through wound patterns, please could you elucidate as to how the hammer was established as being the murder weapon? It stands to reason that there should be a link: as demonstrated above, you yourself stated that you knew the hammer to be the weapon. How did you know?

On 12th March 2015, in another press release, you told of how 2042 men had surrendered their DNA-identification over the initial three-week collection session, and that 1642 “samples have been processed and around 1,235 men have received an email thanking them for volunteering their DNA and eliminating them from the inquiry. [With another 237 men without email to be written to in the following week].”

The process for each sample alluded to in your statement must, by definition if each volunteer has been eliminated as you directly state, involve the following: the translation of the DNA sample into a profile that exists as digital data – which by its nature needs to be stored in virtual space; the contrasting of that profile against the suspect DNA; and the deletion of that digital data on the occurrence of a mismatch. According to an assurance given by Detective Constable Steve Taylor in a press release of 2nd April 2015, “DNA profile[s] will not appear on any database” (although no assurance is given on the consent forms signed by volunteers – as covered in my article “The Great Bosham DNA Harvest…”). Therefore, could you confirm that the 1642 DNA profiles belonging to men who have been eliminated from your investigation have indeed been deleted?

If this is not the case, then it implies that those DNA profiles remain in storage – which in turns means that they exist as records on a database (the form of data receptacle that is traditionally used to organise information in a computer). If these 1642 DNA profiles have in fact been retained on a database (despite your best assurances), and given that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only appears to protect individuals who have had DNA forcibly taken from them by dint of their having been in contact with police by dint of being suspected criminals, please would you point to the legislation that permits a donor of consensually-held DNA to request its deletion from a database, especially one that arguably does not officially exist?

During the first phase of your DNA collection operation, men in Bosham and Fishbourne were asked to sign a consent form which did not mention the retention of DNA profiles – in fact, it did not mention DNA profiles at all as if it was important that the signatory of the form was not aware that such a thing could be manufactured in the process. Interestingly, in the press release mentioned immediately above, the word “profile” to describe a state in which a volunteers’ DNA sample could be held by police appeared for the very first time in any literature (as far as I have been able to find). Does this mean that any new volunteers will be made aware of the difference between a sample and a profile on any consent form they sign prior to surrendering their private information, and will they have it made clear to them the fate of their DNA profile?

If the answer is yes – which means that new volunteers would be asked to provide a more fully and appropriately informed consent than those asked of by volunteers from the first phase of the operation - then will the latter group, who have potentially signed away data beyond their control, be given any means to ensure that they ultimately do have power over the fate of any digital information manufactured from the material that they donated to your investigative team on the basis of misplaced confidence in the integrity of police,  and therefore in a state of deliberately encouraged ignorance?

Yours etc, etc…

 

* A Daily Express article of December 2014 states the following:

“After months of frustration police announced in October that they had obtained a partial DNA sample from the murder weapon. It was described as a ‘significant breakthrough’ and raised hopes that it  would quickly unlock the case.”

The official press release certainly didn’t mention the source of the suspect’s DNA as being the murder weapon – and as mentioned above, the author now notices that the contemporary reporting was also silent on the matter.

Authoritarian thug Cameron repeats “opposition is mental and racist” hoax

One of the nation’s top public enemies, David Cameron, who is guilty of implementing destructive plans, laid by the gangsters in the British monarchy and the Western banking hegemony, to turn the British people into welfare-dependent slaves, and their country into a balkanised, disunited non-entity administered by a proxy-government in Brussels, appeared on a flagship propaganda outlet of the Establishment yesterday to stimulate a corporate-media campaign to combat growing UKIP opposition.

The traitor Cameron principally used the opportunity to make pledges that he has no intention of keeping regarding the never-ending draining away of sovereignty from British people to offshore government so that foreign powers become administrative and tyrannical rulers by proxy for the Queen and other globalists. Cameron was also offered the opportunity by programme host, Andrew Marr, to restate vile assertions regarding UKIP supporters. Naturally, desirous of a smokescreen to hide the fact that he would not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU, as various European dignitaries have recently confirmed, Cameron repeated an earlier attempt to stigmatise UKIP by agreeing with his previous comment that the party consisted of and was supported by ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’.

Stigmatisation, of course, is the first step in a process towards deadly persecution, and that Cameron freely wields it as a political weapon should be an indicator of his totalitarian tendencies. Indeed, it seems to be standard for dictatorships to label their opposition as mentally ill so that key resistance can be neutralised with the excuse that certain people need to be treated behind lock and key for non-apparent health issues.

As well as providing worrying evidence that suggests Cameron is drawn to the sort of catastrophic misrule and democide that many patriots feel will eventually warrant Nuremburg-style trials, the new attack on what constitutes the only real free political opposition to the LibLabCon also offers an opportunity to see how the Establishment manages to cling to power by continually running hoaxes through compliant and conspiring corporate-media. Using the metaphor of the fairy-tale, the LibLabCon has for a long time relied on the British people seeing clothes on the Emperor, instead of seeing him naked.

David Cameron has no good intentions regarding the individual liberties of British people, and their right to self-rule. Indeed, the ‘proof-of-the-pudding’ rule (where the evidence suggests the truth) shows that he and the rest of the Establishment recognises that the era of discussing, in an arena of informed debate, whether or not the three main parties in British politics are Statist, collectivist, communitarian, authoritarians who are fundamentally opposed to freedom and self-determination, has well and truly passed. The Establishment also realises that Britons are becoming convinced in greater numbers that their best interests are not served by the current political environment and that there must be some fundamental change. Therefore, the LibLabCon will try to claim ownership of any political revolution so as to ensure that it profits by it. Moreover, this struggle to stay in power means that  Establishment politicians will need to demonise UKIP, and do it by appealing to the conditioned reflexes of the consumers of corporate-media.

Up until very recently, corporate-media has been used by the Establishment to create what is actually fantasy and portray it as reality in order to produce mass-compliance to its dominance. The official weight of corporate-media, which comes from its plush presentation and the intellectual investment that its consumers make in it (as a way of creating a self-image of themselves as being part of the mainstream), then lends credence to the fantasy. So, LibLabCon Establishment rule can be quantified as a series of hoaxes that are given plausibility by a conspiring corporate-media.

A great and recent example of such a hoax was the Lord McAlpine saga when ITV and BBC awarded the alleged paedophile thousands in compensation even though his name had not come up in their various presentations on the matter. McAlpine’s reluctance to sue leading accuser, David Icke, indicated that the surrender of the BBC and ITV was theatre to present to corporate-media consumers in order to inculcate a reflexive rejection of any idea related to bringing the supposed vast number of sexual criminals and perverts in the Establishment to justice.

Likewise, the way that corporate-media has presented this last weekend’s speech by Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, indicates that the Establishment has organised a coordinated hoax to shape perception of it. David Cameron and William Hague described al-Assad as having ’the most phenomenal amount of blood on his hands’  and wanting to decieve people into believing he was interested in peace – which is really a projection of their own positions. Al-Assad’s insistence that Western governments, including Britain, are aiding al-Qaeda to overthrow his legitimate government has been demonstrable on the ground over again, and resonates with many of the increasingly aware Britons who are finding out from other sources apart from the corporate-media how their government is actually training, arming and coordinating the brutal terrorism committed by Islamists in Syria who have been inserted there by NATO.

However, in terms of the overall population, the number of people who are aware of such reality is relatively small, and the vast numbers who watch corporate-media news coverage as if it is unquestionably authoritative and objective are unable to critically examine the fantasy that the likes of David Cameron presents to them.

So, when Cameron stigmatises UKIP supporters by calling them “odd”, he is playing a hoax through the corporate-media to an unthinking blob of humanity that will respond by having bad feelings about UKIP, and by wanting to exclude UKIP from their considerations for fear of falling out of the mainstream, and for fear of damaging a self-image that is defined by acceptance of corporate-media authority. Because of his knowledge of the power of the hoax-through-corporate-media that the LibLabCon has relied on for so long, Cameron is sure that he can get away with what are actually completely outrageous comments that, in an environment where liberty truly existed, would create universal censure and get him into personal trouble.

Thankfully, the Establishment’s rule-by-hoax is slowly being undone because of the spread of an alternative media, largely staffed by determined individual citizens (although there are notable mini-media empires that are very effective) , which is able to present versions of events that aren’t sanitised or controlled by the Establishment. This has even created a reflexive anti-response to corporate-media and to Establishment politicians so that any output that they produce is automatically adjudged to be deceptive and dishonest. UKIP, being perceived to be something external of the Establishment, obviously benefits by the alienation. The Establishment’s ability to cling to the status quo – rather than make way for a constitutional era where the people are represented by themselves, for themselves – is very much dependent on keeping a corporate-media audience isolated from alternative sources of news and alternative political solutions. Both the growth in UKIP, and the alternative media, suggests that ultimately the Establishment will not be able to maintain its propaganda systems, and the likes of David Cameron will come to regret very dearly making cheap shots to extend his and his ilk’s self-perpetuating, exploitative power.

Totalitarian British State ends 2012 with flourish of self-sustaining injustice

December 2012 saw the nauseating conclusion to two separate cases where instances of free expression, which were adjudged to have been offensive through the prism of war-death worship  (otherwise known as Remembrance), were punished with little regard to what liberty-conscious Americans would call their 1st Amendment rights.

Both cases saw the undeserved and high profile penalisation of individuals – after they had been subjected to a mob with carte-blanche to threaten physical violence. One punishment was by a modern form of pillory with due process having been skipped, and the other by what looked suspiciously like something resembling a mistrial. Neither so-called ‘criminal’ had committed a crime that would be found as such in a real court of law outside of the Banana Republic that is the United Kingdom. Indeed, both cases were clear demonstrations that Britain is a totalitarian state that abuses its legal system in order to perpetuate its survival – to the unashamed detriment of innocents.  Both cases were manipulated for the maintenance of public deference for the annual social control mechanism that also harvests support for new illegal war by being conflated with feelings of sympathy for serving armed forces personnel.

38 year-old Jose Paulo Da Silveria was the man who turned up at Bristol’s Remembrance Day parade dressed as a devil and initially had to be protected by police from parade-day attendees who were heard threatening Da Silveria with violence. Given that the ceremony can be seen as a ritualistic re-enactment of mass blood sacrifice to honour and resurrect Nike – the winged goddess who tropes murder by war into something triumphant, and who has sinister connections through mother Styx to the underworld which prompts a comparison with the dragon-like Satan within a Christian context – attendees who were in the know perhaps reacted angrily to an apparent invitation for observers to make connections that are supposed to remain unlinked. However, prosecutor May Lee represented and played down the danger to Da Silveria from the crowd, who were one way or another feeling distressed because their death-worship had suffered an indignity, as ‘a strong reaction to his presence’.

Da Silveria was arrested for an offence under the Public Order Act of using threatening words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and pled guilty even though he seems to have approached the trial believing that he had no intention of committing a crime. After the trial, reporters were told the following:

‘I ran into the middle of this thing and I didn’t realise what was going on.

‘I was going to College Green and I was just skating along.

‘I just came down from Nelson Street and I don’t remember seeing any restrictions and no one was stopping me from carrying on.

‘It was only when I saw the photographs in the newspaper that I realised what was going on.’

Da Silveria’s lawyer described him as being in a world of his own, and as being without any intent to protest the Remembrance event. Indeed, all the stated evidence suggests that a trial would not necessarily have established that Da Silveria’s was guilty of intending to harass or cause distress to the war-death worshippers at the Bristol Remembrance parade. Moreover, given that at the time of the event Da Silveria was in a window where he had stopped taking medication for psychiatric problems, there are undoubtedly questions to ask as to whether Da Silveria is not in fact an innocent individual who, for whatever reason but his own intent to cause a problem, was at the wrong place at the wrong time and whose vulnerability was then taken advantage of in order to stage a show-trial (that never was!).

In the second example of injustice, after burning a poppy and uploading an image of the act allegedly along with an abusive dedication to serving armed forces personnel, 19 year-old Linford House was subjected to an online ‘hate-campaign’ (seemingly instigated and perpetrated by the English Defence League, who, in their disregard for free speech, are increasingly looking like a group in the pay of the Establishment to generate public support for the hoax that is the ‘War on Terror’) and even had to be moved from his house supposedly for his own safety. If somewhat misdirected in his statement in terms of who he thought he would be attacking by burning a plastic poppy, Linford House was nevertheless not guilty of a crime; instead, his was a valid expression of free speech. Rather than call for British servicemen to ‘burn in hell’ – hence to call for death – which is what Emdadur Choudhury did in 2010 when he got in trouble for burning a poppy (an associate who also faced trial had to be released due to a lack of evidence), Linford House was merely alleged to have captioned his image with the words: ‘How about that you squadey [sic] ****s’. Even if the allegation about the captioning is true (House seemingly took the image down before trustworthy verification could be made), and although ‘squaddies’ in general are labelled with an apparently offensive term, no individual is targeted, and soldiers are likely to have heard worse from a drill sergeant.

Once again, if the case had received a proper hearing in court – this time after a charge under the Malicious Communications Act – it is not entirely certain that Lindford House, if properly advised and arguing his birthright of free speech, would have been successfully prosecuted.

Perhaps this is why the Crown chose to forego a trial, and House was persuaded to submit himself to a process called ‘Restorative Practise’ which seems, at least in House’s case, to involve re-education through a process of humiliation. Indeed, it seems entirely likely that police relied on bad advice (supplied by a conspiring defence lawyer?), House’s youth and resultant naivety, and the threat of a criminal trial to force him to admit his guilt by meeting and apologising to veterans, current military personnel and a war widow.

House’s experience of ‘restoration’ was not a private affair; it was captured by corporate-media and received lots of exposure. Naturally, the conclusion to make is that the experience was not for House’s benefit, but for the benefit of the corporate-media audience who were supposed to form a connection between the feelings of armed forces personnel and their families, and dissent against Remembrance (which is, even if the protester doesn’t realise it, dissent against the Establishment’s ability to exploit the public in order to manufacture support for war). Such a connection is supposed to generate self-censorship.

Keen to exploit the war widow, the Daily Mail quoted Nikki Scott, whose husband Corporal Lee Scott of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment was killed in Afghanistan on 10 July 2009, who said:

My family and I learned the hard way about what a poppy means and stands for and when I saw the picture [of the burning poppy] I was hurt, upset and disgusted.

Happy enough not to expect an apology from the Queen, whose private army it was that facilitated the murder of her husband, Mrs Scott went on to say:

It was good to see Mr House talk to us and apologise and hopefully he will be able to go someway to making up for some of the offence he caused.

Linford House’s re-education seemed to be a public success; he was cited in the same article repeating what looks suspiciously like a talking point fed to him to repeat:

The poppy is a symbol of peace and I shouldn’t have done what I did. I’m sorry to everyone that it’s offended.

In fact, the poppy is a symbol of pagan sacrifice and should be offensive in a Christian country (demonstrating that Marxist Britain is no longer one of those things). Being of the same colour, it represents blood that is spilt into the soil, which then becomes fertilised and sends forth plant life – the process is summarised in the scarlet bloom that actually appeared on the battle fields of World War I after the slaughter, thus fixing the association.

Many ancient and Mesoamerican creation myths tell of how the land first consisted of the dismembered body parts of a slaughtered goddess who thereafter demands blood sacrifice to repay for her own, and as a price for the production of essential crop harvests.