Originally published by The Community Press Group in September 2013


Whilst the bravery, dedication and loyalty of military personnel who carry out the agenda given to them by their Governments are acknowledged, we also know that soldiers are trained to follow orders, and it is not their place to question the rights and wrongs of those orders.

But we can and I do.

When weighing up the pros and cons of launching a strike on Syria, we would do well to remember that it wasn’t only the WMD intelligence ahead of the Iraq war, which was “false” but there was also the “Ricin Conspiracy” which was huge news ahead of the decision to invade Iraq and was much cited as a justification for the invasion and for the introduction of more anti-terror laws.

The case potentially illustrates the “Problem-reaction-solution” technique where a problem is engineered in order to generate a reaction which will guarantee support for your solution. Here is how the “Ricin Conspiracy” unfolded:

5/1/3 Police found a few castor-oil beans, potentially the raw material for the poison ricin at Mouloud Sihali’s flat in Wood Green. They also claimed to have found equipment needed to produce ricin.

7/1/3 Tony Blair announced, without waiting for a trial to determine if the arrests were justified, that “The arrests which were made show this danger is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge”

8/1/3 The Sun reported the discovery of a “factory of death” and other newspapers warned that 250,000 of us could have died and a poison gang was on the loose. (In reality, ricin has never been a weapon of mass destruction; it has only been used in one on one assassinations.)

5/2/3 Colin Powell said: “The ricin that is bouncing around Europe now originated in Iraq – not in the part which is under Saddam Hussein’s control, but his security forces know all about it”

20/3/3: The USA with UK support, invaded Iraq.

30/3/3: The head of US forces in Iraq announced “And it’s from this site where people were trained and poisons were developed that migrated into Europe. We think that’s probably where the ricin found in London came from”

Eighteen months later, the evidence came to light and finally in 2005 April, in a British court, a jury acquitted Sihali due to the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It had even emerged that the only tests carried out on the substance were preliminary ones, which were completed by 8th January. The most that could ever be said was that there was a weak positive result for manufactured ricin from a presumptive test carried out on a mortar and pestle. (A presumptive test fails to eliminate a substance from suspicion; it merely confirmed that the substance could have been ricin, but the same could have been said about numerous other substances)

Additionally the Porton Down analyst “Witness H” admitted to not keeping any records of the tests or of the communications of the findings of the tests to the police. It was revealed during the trial that the lead scientist, “Dr A”, and others with whom he worked, had arrived at the collective conclusion that the traces could not be attributed to ricin and the result was to be regarded as negative, not positive. Despite this, on the 6th January, the Operations Manager at Porton Down communicated to the police that they had found a positive result when testing for ricin, and did not tell the police that there may be a problem with the test until late March, by which time the invasion had occurred.

On 13/4/5 legal affairs analyst for the BBC Jon Silverman wrote: “A key unexplained issue is why the Porton Down laboratory which analysed the material and equipment seized from a flat in Wood Green said that the residue of ricin had been found when it had not”

Cameron’s case for an attack on Syria takes Britain to a new low. Why? This time not only are he and Obama not bothering with obtaining evidence of the chemical attack (as was the case with the WMD in Iraq) but they are not even claiming that the country they are about to attack represents a threat to them. If the grounds for intervention are humanitarian, then that it surely a decision for the UN to take. Not that the UN instills me with any great confidence; it is hopelessly conflicted because its leading nations are also the world’s biggest arms dealing ones, and it was founded at the behest of bankers who profit from the debts which wars bring. There have been far more wars since the UN was founded in 1957 than in the entire history of the planet before then. And it’s curious that the supposed chemical attack happened within days of the UN arriving in the country and basing themselves twenty minutes’ drive away from the scene of the crime.

There’s another curiosity to mention. On 29th January 2013 the online edition of the Daily Mail ran a major story by Louise Boyle which was that a leaked email revealed that the US had backed a plan to launch a chemical attack in Syria and blame the Assad regime. The story was taken down a few days later.




First published in November 2013

One thing which members of electorates may choose to consider is the tendency of their Government to sign up to legislation and guidelines laid down not just by the EU but by the United Nations.

In November 2013 the Office of the Children’s Commissioner recently released this report entitled “If only someone had listened” http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_743 The report rattles off a series of statistics about children being involved in sex and sexual attacks etc, and the media put the sort of slant on it one would expect.

Attacks by children on children have continued to escalate since. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2934981/Under-10s-committing-sex-crimes.html

But who is responsible? That very same Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC), in its own words at the start of the report, says that “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child underpins and frames all of our work”

That’s the same UN which in 2009 recommended that five year olds should be taught masturbation techniques. http://www.coe.int/t/ngo/Source/International_guidelines_on_sexuality_education_en.pdf

When the kids are being persuaded to explore sexuality before puberty, is it really such a surprise that these events are happening? And who benefits? For more news, please see 29 minutes in http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-26th-november-2013

and http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/26/un-report-advocates-teaching-masturbation-to-5-year-olds

Whilst the majority of those who work for the UN and EU do so in good faith both of those bodies undermine national sovereignty through mandates which are unrecognisable compared to those which were initially “sold” to the public.

Some call it communism, others call it fascism, but both the UN and EU were founded and funded by those who hold a view that the earth should be run by an elite few with one massive underclass of “serfs”. EU http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich–EU.html

and UN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bngaUSZEMGU





Do you remember what David Rockefeller said in 1994? “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during these years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

And what of UN Agenda 21?

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level”. – – George H. Bush http://patriotupdate.com/articles/totalitarian-program-agenda-21-now-in-effect/

Whether you are an individual, a business or a nation, your individual characteristics, quirks and talents are being nullified; communities are being undermined by “one size fits all” diktat, http://communitypressgroup.com/articles/the-global-society-from-my-bank-account-to-glasgow-celtic-one-size-fits-all/ ignoring the fact that everyone brings something to the table and square pegs don’t go into round holes. If employers can’t refuse applicants on the basis of gender, disability, intelligence, character or looks, we could have one legged postmen, Quasimodo winning Miss World, Stevie Wonder flying planes, Susan Boyle playing for Arsenal and Wayne Rooney running NASA.

When we were teenagers I had a mate whose girlfriend used to retire to bed at 2030 telling her parents she was tired, pop downstairs at 2130 asking them to turn the TV down because it was keeping her awake, and she’d be out on the town with him by 2200. Attack is the best form of defence. Accuse others of being what you are. If you want to feather your nest, accuse others of doing it. If you are a sex offender, enable legislation which allows a sex offenders register to contain the names of people who have not been convicted or tried. If you want inequality, preach equality. Burn down the Reichstag and accuse your opposition of doing it. Those claiming to propose Scottish independence are doing so with what are actually plans to suck the country into the EU behemoth. Those saying they are protecting freedoms are taking them away. Those promoting anti discrimination are doing so in a highly discriminatory fashion. Some of Guernsey’s suggested consensus Government changes are plans for at least as much of a minority dictatorship as Cabinet Government.

It seems to me that we’re being led to believe that somehow discrimination is automatically bad. I suggest that a society without discrimination would be lawless. All rules and laws discriminate. Outlawing stealing discriminates against kleptomaniacs; prohibiting murder discriminates against psychopaths; the offside law discriminates against attackers. Are these bad laws? If the nanny state wants to justify introducing legislation it has to do rather better than shouting “discrimination” and walking off.

Glasgow Celtic FC recently got into hot water with UEFA and reprimanded its own fans after they displayed political views on Bobby Sands and William Wallace at a game with AC Milan.“Fans should leave their political views at home, we are a football club” stormed the Celtic chief. Yet a few months prior, Celtic had released an official anti-racism video, and days later their fans, along with all others, gave a minute of their time before a game to applaud Nelson Mandela. No reprimand there, but hypocrisy in abundance. If you and I went to a game and one of us displayed a “support gay rights and kick out racism banner”, and the other displayed an “oppose gay rights and support racism banner”, only one of us would see the entire game. If that’s not discrimination, what is?

No one on the planet is with the majority view on every single issue. Why should the minority or individual view – and talent -not be expressed? Increasingly we are losing the right to disagree with the (often self appointed) global authorities with whom anyone who remains silent is taken to agree. That will result in a global fiefdom.

One currency, one tax authority, one food supplier, (and by the way, the Chairman of Nestle recently said that drinking water is not a human right and aspartame was declared safe by the EFSA) one religion, one communication system, one media etc. All privately owned by the friends and family of those who were given the exclusive right to create money out of thin air.

Does anybody care?


(First published October 2013)

When an outsourcing and subcontracting mentality takes hold, and especially when such deals are conducted under the radars of the majority of people’s representatives, dangerous scenarios can arise.

We can end up with, for example, civil servants deciding to outsource health functions or police operations – a particular concern for many.

Two obvious problems with the latter are: 1) it could end up with criminals and their friends running the battle against crime and 2) private sector needs profit, so the wealthiest will receive preferential treatment.

In the UK we have moves for private security to police streets to prevent petty crime.




And now on 7th October 2013 , the date of its launch, the National Crime Agency has appealed to the private sector (primarily bankers, accountants and IT experts) to run the fight against organised crime.


We also have the private sector running prisons (the UK has the most privatised prison system in Europe)


So in the UK the entire fight against crime is moving into private hands. This doesn’t surprise me given the amount of Common Purpose involvement in ACPO and the UK police forces . West Yorkshire Police is a primary example. Mark Gilmore is the current Chief; look at the cover ups here:

http://www.upsd.co.uk/chief-constable-mark-gilmore/ from which I quote “Part of his recent CV includes acting as Chief of Staff to ACPO President Sir Hugh Orde. ACPO Chief Orde was revealed as co-author of the post-Hillsborough Independent Panel Report press release in which Bettison continued to blame Liverpool fans for the disaster”

Not only are Gilmore and Orde Common Purpose graduates, so is Mark Burns-Williamson who appointed him, and former Chief John Parkinson) and also Adrian Lee (see earlier link regarding police running drunk tanks).

When I see my local force in Guernsey being streamlined and the power which our recently arrived from the UK Police Chief Patrick “I won’t tell you if I’ve had Common Purpose training or not” Rice has been given, I am deeply concerned that politicians are losing control of my island in vital areas.

The justification for involving private entities in the National Crime Agency launched on 6th October 2013, according to the media coverage, is to fill the skills gap. So there is a skills gap. Wasn’t that the very reason for disbanding SOCA? On that basis then the NCA should be disbanded on its first day.

SOCA was set up by Tony Blair. I suspected at the time that he did this in order to control the powers of those investigating organised crime – perhaps the existing system had been going into areas he didn’t want them to visit. Was it a coincidence that it was the SFO –the only crime fighting agency which remained independent of SOCA–that nearly managed to subject Blair to what should have been the biggest scandal of his reign – before it too had its wings clipped over the BAe / Saudi investigation?


A further indication of the Blair regime’s idea of justice perhaps.

It can take many years of investigation into an organised crime ring to bring about the right result. The diligence and information gathering procedures required have to be more than water tight, especially in the face of clever opposition mafia lawyers and moving legislative, dynamics, personnel and relationship changes within and between different countries. SOCA was only formed in 2006 and the purpose of that was to centralise control by amalgamating the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (elements of which were incorporated into AVCIS), the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU), the investigative and intelligence sections of HM Revenue & Customs on serious drug trafficking, and the Immigration Service’s responsibilities for organised immigration crime. TheAssets Recovery Agency became part of SOCA in 2008, while the Serious Fraud Office remained a separate agency. Was SOCA ever given a chance to work?

It looks to me as if SOCA was just a stepping stone towards privatisation of UK security and the NCA is another.

And so to the Crimewatch Uk programme on 14/10/13. There were two ways of watching it. One was to follow the cases involved and see if you could help to solve them. But if you were to watch it analytically, you may see a rather dark and political structure to it. Was it so structured with the aim of persuading us to trust the NCA (which as observers have commented, resembles the FBI)?

The first half of the programme was spent convincing us what a great idea the NCA is and how they were already making substantial inroads into the McCann case.

By their own admission, the NCA is there to tackle the big boys of organised crime. Why then are they so involved in the McCann investigation? Wouldn’t it be convenient if, within a month or two of its launch the NCA was instrumental in solving the McCann case, which has been pulling at the nation’s heart strings for years? With thousands of kids going missing in Britain and the USA is it not strange that this one and Natalie Holloway in the US repeatedly hit the headlines for no apparent reason? The McCanns have without doubt striven hard to keep the case of their daughter in the public eye, but are we to believe that the parents of the other missing children haven’t?

The media build up to the Crimewatch programme was extraordinary – instead of coming out with the new information themselves, the tabloids majored on telling us to watch Crimewatch on Monday night where, we were told, it would be shown that much of what we thought we knew about the McCann case was wrong and there would be significant new information.. After they had finished with the McCann case, it was as if the Crimewatch producer had said to Kirsty Young: “It doesn’t matter how you do, it, get to this conclusion”. KY told us that Mrs Lewthwaite, widow of an alleged 7/7/13 bomber (unproven of course as no investigation ever happened) was suspected, “although it has not been proven” admitted KY, of being involved in the attack on the Kenyan Mall (just after a massive water find in Kenya). If she had been involved in that attack, we were told, she would have entered Kenya with a fake ID. This showed, apparently, the need for the NCA to prioritise ID fraud.

Very neat: Get us all to watch Crimewatch, which spends half an hour getting us to trust the NCA. Then when we see no need to question the NCA’s actions “by the way they’re going to be checking everyone’s ID”

And how accountable will the NCA be? Not very according to this:http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/6727/whats-non-ministerial-about-the-new-national-crime-agency