UK Man gets 8yrs behind bars for ‘aiding ISIS’ online


A British man who kept Islamic State publications concealed, James Bond-style, in memory cards inside cufflinks and created a “one-stop shop” for terrorists online has been sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to five terrorism charges.

Samata Ullah, 34, an unemployed man from Wales, was sentenced to eight years in prison with a five-year extension period on Tuesday after pleading guilty to five charges of terrorism in a British court, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The court at the Old Bailey in London heard how Ullah created an online hub for terrorists from his bedroom, where he uploaded instructional videos and other information to aid terrorists.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Ullah was a part of a global network of terrorists who were using their cyber skills to aid Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). Ullah provided instructional videos on how to use encryption programs to hide terrorist activities online and helped IS develop their capabilities and spread propaganda through the Dark Web.

“It is the first time we have seen anything on this scale,” Commander Dean Haydon, head of the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism unit, said, according to the BBC. “He had set up a self-help library for terrorists around the world and they were using his library.”

Haydon described Ullah’s online library as “a one-stop shop for terrorists,” with “guidance on encryption, ways to avoid detection from police and security services, expert tuition around missile systems, and a vast amount of propaganda.”

Prosecutor Brian Altman QC described Ullah as a “new and dangerous breed of terrorist,” according to the BBC.

In March, Ullah admitted to being a member of IS as well as aiding the group in terrorist training, preparing terrorist attacks and possessing articles connected with terrorism.

Ullah was arrested at his home in Wales last September after an international sting operation monitored conversations he had with a Kenyan contact who planned anthrax attacks in the East African nation.

Upon Ullah’s arrest in September, police seized around 200 pieces of evidence, including 150 digital devices with eight terabytes of data, which the Metropolitan Police described as “equivalent of more than 2.2 million copies of the War and Peace e-book.”

Police also found around 30 USB memory cards disguised as cufflinks, which contained “infamous ISIS publications,” according to the Met.

The Metropolitan Police said the evidence they found established Ullah as an active member of IS and “revealed his radical mindset.”

“Just because Ullah’s activity was in the virtual world we never underestimated how dangerous his activity was,” Haydon said. “He sat in his bedroom in Wales and created online content with the sole intention of aiding people who wanted to actively support ISIS and avoid getting caught by the authorities.”

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK Election: Journalists as State Functionaries


There was a brief moment of truth on Sky News this morning (9th May), where there was a brief discussion of disquiet among journalists that Theresa May will only take questions that have been pre-vetted and selected in advance by the Tory Party. The Sky reporter even gave the detail that the journalists are not allowed to hold the microphone, which is controlled by a Tory Party functionary so it can be switched off if the journalist strays from the script.

This has been the case right from the start, something I highlighted a few days ago.

But the overall treatment on Sky was that this was not really important, and was simply a matter of ensuring “fairness” in distributing questions between journalists.

This is a desperate situation. I do not know any genuine democracy in the world which would accept this. I have just spent two months in Ghana, where there would be a commendable roar of outrage if the President tried to limit what questions can be asked of him – and he would never dream of doing so. Nowhere in the European Union, not even in authoritarian Hungary, are journalists’ questions pre-vetted.

The idea that the head of the government both gets to choose what they have asked, and gets advance warning of every question so they can look sharp with their answer, is totally antithetical to every notion of democratic accountability. If we had anything approaching a genuine free media, there would be absolute outrage. All genuine media organisations would react by boycotting such events and simply refusing to cover them at all.

The media know perfectly well that the reason May needs protection from difficult questions – and even advance notice of soft ones – is that she is hopeless. Her refusal to debate Corbyn and her car crash interview with Marr illustrate that. But our servile media cover up for her by colluding in entirely fake events.

I learn from a BBC source that in the special Question Time the BBC have organised for May in lieu of a debate, questioners will be selected in advance and May will see the questions in time to prepare.

My observation that the Conservative platform is in its essentials identical to the BNP manifesto of 2005 has received widespread social media coverage. I simply cannot conceive that the UK can have become so right wing. Now add to that, it has become so authoritarian there is no reaction to advance vetting of journalists questions – something Vladimir Putin does not do. And very few people seem to care.

I understand that Theresa May has succeeded in going so far to the right she hoovers up all of UKIP votes. In some ways she has gone further to the right than UKIP ever did. For all his faults, Nigel Farage would be quite genuinely horrified at the idea of pre-vetting of which questions from journalists are permitted. The thing I do not understand, is that it appears that there is no lurch too far into right-wing authoritarianism which causes more liberal conservatives to desert.

I suspect many are deluding themselves she has the ability to control the far right forces to which her every word and action pander. They delude themselves. Firstly, May really is that right wing and illiberal. Secondly it has gone beyond control. Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society has a major article in The Sun today in which he forecasts violence (“deeds not words”) by “the people” if immigration specifically from Muslim countries is not curtailed. He does not state what form precisely these deeds not words by the people would take, but it is hard to see anything he can mean except violence against Muslims. People like Murray are now the mainstream Conservatives.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Brexit – Is Germany Dictating to Britain the After-Brexit Rules? – A Prelude to the French Elections


“German government officials have  proposed giving Britain access to the European Union’s single market in return for a fee, …

The 35-page report on the potential costs of Brexit to Germany said Britain’s departure from the EU risked “serious economic and stability relevant consequences; effects in particular on the real economy.” The ministry officials calculated Berlin would have to pay an additional 4.5 billion euros ($5 billion) a year into EU coffers as a result of Britain’s departure from the bloc. To mitigate the cost, they floated the idea of charging Britain for access to the single market. 

“Such a future financial contribution should be used to alleviate the financial consequences of Brexit (reduction in EU spending or increase in payments for other member states),” Focus quoted the officials as saying. … (Reuters, May 6, 2017)

It’s hilarious! – Germany offering Britain post-BREXIT access to the European market for an annual “fee”! And this, from the looks of it, just so that Germany does not have to pay some US$ 5 billion more into the wasteful kitty of the overloaded, over-paid and incompetent bureaucracy of the EU apparatus in Brussels.

We can only hope BREXIT will be followed by many others, like, for example, FREXIT, France leaving the European Non-Union. It would be the end of the EU which would be a blessing for Europe. Eighty percent of the French want a referendum on France leaving the European Union. It will never happen if Macron becomes President.

How many French, or Europeans for that matter, know that Macron made his rapid political ascent by starting his career with the Rothschild banksters and then was catapulted by Hollande and PM Valls into the position of French Minister of Finance, basically to deregulate everything of the economy that had not yet been deregulated, as well as pushing through a PM decree, the infamous anti-union French Labor law. He is a neoliberal globalist, defending a new-fascist economy. That is not what the media portray, and surely not what the people want.

Today, May 7, as many disenchanted French voters say, there is the choice between the Pest and Cholera, voting for Macron or for Le Pen. But there is indeed another choice – Abstention; showing the powers that be their disgust with ongoing lie-propaganda and resulting politics.

Who do you think has financed the massive propaganda that brought Macron to prominence from an almost unknown past? – The banksters, worldwide, and their interest groups, of course. Globalization must not die. The world hasn’t been sucked entirely dry yet. If France were to exit the system, like the Brits decided almost a year ago, the globalization empire might crumble – with neo-fascism at peril.

Hence, the massive pro-Macron propaganda for tomorrow’s elections, led by Brussels and Washington and the related Big Finance and Industrial interests and lobbyists. – They don’t want a collapse of the EU – the elite on either side benefits greatly from the current system, as usual, at the detriment of the populations.

But back to Britain: The UK does NOT need the EU. In fact, London has already had preliminary talks with China for bilateral agreements. If they materialize, they will most likely encompass more than just China, namely the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which comprises also Russia, most of Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran with India as an aspiring candidate.

If such agreements were to materialize, Britain’s market would be linked to more than half of the world’s population and about a third of the globe’s economic output. There would be no need for the decaying European Union and her faltering western allies. Let’s be clear: The future is in the East. The West is passé.

May we just hope that the Brits will not fall for Germany’s ‘generous’ offer of access to the EU market.


All of this is not to say that a European Union per se would be bad. However, NOT and I repeat NOT under the current premises, under the current set-up. This construct has to be dismantled, the faster the better. It was not even a European idea in the first place, but a CIA initiative just after WWII – and Washington’s objective even before WWII, to create a Continent of Vassals, united in a “Union of European States”, but without a Constitution, therefore without common political goals (a “non-union”), and with one currency, the Euro, that was created according to the same fraudulent principles as the dollar and fully dependent on the dollar, so the new puppet union could be easily economically manipulated and controlled.

It is fraudulent, because money is made by private banks, from thin air, without any backing, therefore ideal for manufacturing crisis after crisis for the benefit of the banksters and the rich.

That’s precisely what has happened. And we, in Europe, are about to wake up. The Brits with BREXIT were first. We can just hope it’s not too late.

A new European Union should be born in Europe, by Europeans and for Europeans – and WITHOUT interference from outside, especially not form Washington. A new Europe should be free to choose her alliances from the east and west without restrictions and without fear of sanctions, for not behaving according to a self-imposed foreign Master’s dictate.

This article was in part based on an interview of the author with Press TV

Posted in Germany, UK0 Comments

Politicising anti-Semitism: the USA’s and UK’s flawed definition


Theresa May's gift to the pro-Isreali lobby

By Lawrence Davidson

The “working definition”

“Back in the day,” which in this case was 8 February 2007, the US State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism adopted a “working definition” of anti-Semitism which included the following point: It is anti-Semitic to “deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour)”. The whole definition, including the quoted sentence, did not originate with the State Department. It was originally “written collaboratively by a small group of non-governmental organisations” which remained unnamed.

This “working definition” has proved to have staying power. Thus, the US Congress has used the State Department document in devising its Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016, and in December 2016 the British government adopted an almost identical “working definition”, which listed the same alleged act of denial – the one that links the Jewish people’s “right of self-determination” with the “claim that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour” as an example of “contemporary anti-Semitism”.

There is something not quite right about this aspect of the “working definition”. The two parts of the quoted sentence don’t really go together logically. Thus, labelling Israel as it presently exists as a “racist endeavour” does not “deny the Jewish people their right of self-determination”. It only asserts that self-determination carried forth in a racist manner, by Jews or anyone else, is illegitimate.

Although neither the State Department’s nor the UK government’s taking up of this “working definition” is not legally binding on non-governmental individuals or organisations (a fact not widely publicised), it has allowed both US and British Zionists to label critics of Israel as anti-Semites in what appears to be a semi-official way, and this has opened the floodgates for a growing number of actions by colleges, universities, civic groups and the like to ban conferences, student organisations and speakers who would condemn Israeli behaviour and support Palestinian rights.

Subsequently, the respected British jurist Hugh Tomlinson has come out with an opinion on this “working definition” which finds it flawed, and the UK government’s assertion of it legally unenforceable.

A flawed assumption

The assertion that criticism of Israel is an act of anti-Semitism relies on the assumption that, because Israel describes itself as “a Jewish state”, it represents all Jews. This exaggeration, in turn, seems reasonable due to a broader tendency, most prevalent in the democratic West, to confuse governments and the people they claim authority over. Americans and most Europeans live in democracies and vote for their governments in relatively honest elections. So, aren’t they in some way to be identified with the policies of their governments? The claim can be no more than partially true. Maybe an argument can be made for those who actually voted for the policymakers in a politically aware fashion. But what of the those who did not vote for them? Or how about those who did not vote at all? How about those who do not reside within the country that claims them?

It is interesting to note that this identification of specific groups with specific governments is rarely made by those living in dictatorships and states with rigged elections. In those places the population knows that their wishes have no relation to policy. Often their assumption is that the same sort of disconnect is a really a worldwide phenomenon. So, for instance, if you go to Iran, Iranians will usually tell you that they heartily dislike the US government and, at the same time, really like the American people. No one believes that the two things, government and people, are really the same thing.

When it comes to populations that are spread out beyond one particular state, the exaggeration becomes even more obvious. Thus, can the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka claim the loyalty of Nepalese Buddhists for their horrible war against the Tamils? Should the ethnic Chinese living in San Francisco be expected to support the expansionist policies of the Chinese government in Tibet?

Common sense tells us that it is a gross exaggeration to identify specific ethnic or religious groups with the policies of specific governments, even democratic ones. Yet as we have seen above, in one ongoing case, that of the Jews and Israel, the argument is being pushed very strongly – to the point where laws are being considered to mandate just such an identification.

Israel de-civilises

Since the inception of the the state of Israel, one Israeli government after the other has insisted that the Israeli state officially represents every last Jew on the planet – thus conflating nationality and religious identity. The fabricated nature of this claim has become more obvious as Israeli behaviour and culture has grown ever more racist and the policies of its governments more blatantly in violation of international law and the norms of human and civil rights.

While much of the rest of the world has strived to increase diversity and tolerance, Israel and a small number of other states (such as Myanmar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) go about practising official discrimination, segregation and expulsion. As they do so, they inevitably produce cultures that those who support human and civil rights can only describe as ugly and deformed. As a consequence, more and more Jews have responded by disassociating themselves with Zionist Israel.

What then has been the response of the Israeli government? It is, essentially, to spit in the face of Jews supportive of human rights. The Israelis seek to force the issue by using their influence and that of Zionist lobby surrogates to push for new laws in key foreign lands, such as the US and the UK, to make criticism of the Israeli state legally synonymous with anti-Semitism. The US and British adoption of the suspect portion of the “working definition” of anti-Semitism cited here is a step in this direction, and a consequence of Zionist pressure.


It should be noted that Israel and its supporters, being the “deep thinkers” they aren’t, have created an reductio ad absurdum situation. To wit, anyone who publicly condemns Israeli human rights violations (that is Israeli racist acts) must be anti-Semitic (racist) – even if they happen to be Jewish. That is what you get when you pursue particularistic expediency over the general logic of tolerance and humanitarianism.

One can ask how it is that American and British, as well as other politicians and law makers, who are themselves part of cultures that are even now seeking to overcome racism, can buy into such an illogical argument?

Their doing so seems to be an expression of the electoral marketplace. Politicians need money to survive in their chosen career. As long as it does not cost them an overwhelming number of votes, they will sell their support to high bidders. And, no one bids higher than the Zionists.

This means that democratic politics is most often not a principled activity. It can be idealised, of course, but as long as it is dependent on incessant fund-raising, it will be corrupt in practice. That is why the Zionists can easily arrange for most Western politicians to selectively suppress free speech in their own countries and support racism in Israel.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Pimping for I$raHell remains undiminished since UN report branded it an apartheid state

Pimping for Israel remains undiminished since UN report branded it an apartheid state

Theresa May and Binyamin Netanyahu

By Stuart Littlewood

In the UK you can start a petition on the government website. If it reaches 10,000 signatures you get a response from the government. If it tops 100,000 it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Currently there’s a petition saying the UK must apologise for the Balfour Declaration and lead peace efforts in Palestine. It says:

We call on Her Majesty’s Government to openly apologise to the Palestinian people for issuing the Balfour Declaration. The colonial policy of Britain between 1917-1948 led to mass displacement of the Palestinian nation. The British government should recognise its role during the Mandate and now must lead attempts to reach a solution that ensures justice for the Palestinian people.

The government’s response is unhelpful, to say the least:

The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG does not intend to apologise. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace…

Establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do… We recognise that the declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination. However, the important thing now is to look forward and establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace. We believe the best way to achieve this is through a two-state solution: a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

We believe that such negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians… If both parties show bold leadership, peace is possible. The UK is ready to do all it can to support this goal.

– Foreign and Commonwealth Office

I wonder what bureaucratic nitwit wrote that. They’ve been spouting nonsense about “a two-state solution: a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state” for decades and they know full well that it won’t happen without forcing measures. International law has spoken and waits to be implemented. World powers, if they truly respect the rule of law, must mobilise and apply it without fear or favour. Many experts are now saying that the international community’s conniving inaction has allowed Israel to establish enough “facts on the ground” to make its illegal occupation permanent.

Note also the crude bias: “a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state”. No safety and security for Palestine, no sir! Just threadbare viability.

Many experts are now saying that the international community’s conniving inaction has allowed Israel to establish enough “facts on the ground” to make its illegal occupation permanent.

And who – ignoring all reports to the contrary – praised Israel recently for being “a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance” and said that the British government will be marking the centenary of the infamous Balfour Declaration later this year “with pride”? And who has invited the arch war criminal Binyamin Netanyahu to the celebrations? None other than Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, the daughter of an Anglican priest and a regular churchgoer. What does that say about this righteous woman’s real values, real standards, and real concerns for the endless misery inflicted on her Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters in the Holy Land by Israel with its military boot on their necks?

And who hurriedly declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures? That’s right, the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s clownish foreign secretary: “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced.

Meanwhile, in the latest show of just how far how truth and freedom of expression have become subservient to Jewish sensibilities, the Liberal Democrats have barred their former MP David Ward from standing for the party in the coming general election after its leader, Tim Farron, said his comments about Jews had been “deeply offensive, wrong and anti-Semitic”.

Ward has “form” in defying the Israel lobby. Yet he was selected by his local party to stand again for the seat he held from 2010 until 2015. But after criticism from Theresa May in the House of Commons and a meeting of senior Liberal Democrat officials, Farron said: “I believe in a politics that is open, tolerant and united. David Ward is unfit to represent the party and I have sacked him.”

Why is David Ward “unfit”? What exactly was his (alleged) crime?

Four years ago I reported that the Liberal Democrat leadership threw a mighty wobbly when Ward made this remark on his website:

I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.

Goaded by the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who complained that Ward’s remarks “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust” and were “sickening” and “offensive”, the party’s Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael, agreed they were “wholly inappropriate” and that singling out “the Jews” in that way crossed a red line.

Ward, who had visited Palestine and seen the truth for himself, was treated like a delinquent. Party leader Nick Clegg ordered him to work alongside the party’s Friends of Israel “to identify and agree language that will be proportionate and precise” in future debate. Disciplinary steps would then be reviewed. Ward subsequently received a letter from Carmichael withdrawing the whip (i.e. suspending him from the parliamentary party). According to Sky News, Carmichael wrote: “As we have sought to impress upon you repeatedly, we are having to decide on whether language you chose to use… is language which brings the party into disrepute or harms the interests of the party.”

Carmichael banged on about the need for language that was proportionate and precise and how Ward’s language caused “considerable offence rather than addressing questions of political substance about the plight of the Palestinian people and the right of Israel’s citizens to live a life free of violence”. He claimed Ward misrepresented the views of the party. “We put it to you that your most recent statement – which specifically questions the continuing existence of the State of Israel – is neither proportionate nor precise.”

Carmichael’s reprimand plumbed new depths of stupidity when he said: “We have given you every opportunity to reconcile the expression of your views with the party’s policy on a two-state solution… the two-state solution for which the party has long argued.” Carmichael and Clegg, and especially Farron, really need to watch this video by Miko Peled. Same goes for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army. You couldn’t find a more authentic insider source. He confirms in suitably proportionate and precise language what many others have been saying for years. Here’s a flavour.

The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabising the country…

When people talk about the possibility of Israel somehow giving up the West Bank for a Palestinian state, if it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the objective of Zionism and the Zionist state.

By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible. By 1993 the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank – the settlements were there, billions of dollars were invested, the entire Jordan River valley was settled… there was no place any more for a Palestinian state to be established. That is when Israel said, OK, we’ll begin negotiations…

Peled also describes the Israeli army, in which he served, as “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world.

As for his punishment, Ward claimed his views were widely shared. “I will not apologise for describing the state of Israel as an apartheid state. I don’t know how you can describe it as anything else.”

Farron’s bully-boy tactics are completely at odds with the opinion of top legal experts who were recently asked for their views by Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. In a nutshell, those in public life cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.

There is a further obligation to allow all concerned in public debate “to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

What’s more, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says the same sort of thing, subject of course to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

Farron and his handlers have no excuse for treating David Ward like this. The big question-mark hangs over Farron himself, as to whether he’s fit to represent the Liberal Democrats, let alone lead them.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

The Big Fat Brexit*

Adelina Marini,

On the eve of its 60th anniversary the European Union is no longer just enlarging, but contracting as well. For the first time (excluding the special case of Greenland) in the history of the Union a member state takes the road not taken towards the exit. Who would have thought that when the just elected leader of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker stated in 2014 that by the end of his term there would not be a new enlargement of the Union, there would actually be a contraction. On March 29, Great Britain filed the official notice for exiting the Union and according to the European Treaties (the now famous Article 50) it should cease to be a member two years later. This will happen on March 29, 2019 – the year when the term of Mr Juncker’s Commission expires and there will be European Parliament elections.

Great Britain is the least integrated member state, but its exit will be a very indicative example of exactly what the EU is and how intertwined it is. Until now, the EU has accumulated decades of experience in acceding new members, but has no experience of anyone leaving. The complexity stems from the fact that while the exit negotiations are under way, Britain must start replacing European legislation with its own, and also start building its future, which looks like it is going to be the most difficult part of the task, as the EU has already declared its strong intention not only not to do the exercise easy for the United Kingdom, but also to complicate it as much as possible, in an attempt to discourage all potential future aspirations to leave.

Theresa May in the rabbit Brexit

Ever since the notorious European speech of David Cameron, Britain has been fully obsessed by its relations with the EU. His speech took place in January 2013, but preparations for it began much earlier. All the media and political factors in the country were busy preparing for the European referendum of June 2016, and now with the preparations for the country’s exit after just over half of British voters chose to break with the EU. To top it all off, British Prime Minister Theresa May has decided to call snap parliamentary elections on June 8th.

Over the next two years, British society will continue to be fully absorbed by the exit. It is likely that the topic will continue to make the headlines after that as well, as the future relationship between London and Brussels may not have been negotiated. Now that Article 50 is triggered, there is no going back and the medicine will have to be taken in full. And whether Great Britain will get bigger or shrink it’s an entirely British problem. However, the UK leaving will cost the EU too much time, energy and resources as well. The road is unlikely to be entirely smooth for the 27, who are currently holding up and do not succumb to British provocations. How long will this unity stand, given that intra-union tensions are constantly growing and to what extent will the Rome agreement to move towards a multi-speed Europe prove to be a good pressure releasing valve, is a question that will stand in the background with the potential to turn into an elephant in the room.

From the documents and conversations exchanged so far, it is clear that the most neuralgic points in the negotiations will be to resolve the status of European and respectively British citizens after the exit, which is identified as the number one priority in the EU negotiating position; arranging financial relationships; some bilateral issues; financial services; when to begin the negotiations on the post-divorce settlement agreement.

Theresa May’s chess pieces

To the British government, the priorities are to hold parallel negotiations – on the way out and on the settlement of the post-divorce relations; to settle financial relationships on the basis of compromises on other points; settlement of the status of European citizens in the UK; to link security and defence cooperation with concessions in other sectors; London maintaining its privileged position in the single market for financial services. Parallel to the exit negotiations, Britain will also replace European legislation with its own. More than half of UK departments are currently engaged in this process. According to the Brexit White Paper, published in February, the UK will maintain European legislation by the time it leaves, then it will consider what elements of it to be retained, which are to be amended and which are to be completely abolished after the exit.

Regarding the financial commitments that the UK has to the EU, London places its 2016 Autumn Statement as a starting point. The country is prepared to fulfil its commitments to all projects signed so far on all European structural and investment funds, even if it means these projects will continue after the UK’s exit from the EU, including the commitments under the Common Agricultural Policy. The latter is particularly important given that Britain has always been the biggest enemy of this community policy. The British Treasury is also willing to fund projects signed after 2016 Autumn Statement, provided they bring a strong return and if they are consistent with domestic strategic priorities. Applications made directly to the European Commission by British organisations, institutions, universities, and businesses will also be funded.

Unofficially, London is not particularly happy to be offered a bill to pay, but the attitude is that when negotiating with the EU it is always about money. This means that British negotiators will seek every opportunity to “redeem” their interests.

The status of European citizens in the UK and the British ones in the EU is another point that is facing tense negotiations. London’s initial desire was to resolve this issue before the start of formal talks, but the EU firmly refused. The Brexit White Paper says that this has happened despite many member states expressing readiness for such a method. The approach on this topic will be based on reciprocity.

One of the important issues that will hang as Damocles sword over the negotiations for the next two years while Britain remains a full member of the EU is whether London will resort to blocking European legislation in order to gain concessions in the exit negotiations. A British diplomat, whom euinside talked to, did not entirely dismiss such a possibility, but at this stage the UK intends to continue acting as it has so far, and this is not particularly encouraging. London’s official stance is that it will not interfere with EU development, but it will block any legislation that it believes may be to the detriment of the country after membership is terminated. The guidelines currently drafted by the EU and expected to be approved by the European Council on 29 April explicitly state that “negotiations with the United Kingdom will be kept separate from ongoing Union business, and shall not interfere with its progress.”

The EU – all for one and one for all

At this stage the Union demonstrates considerable unity. All 27 Member States agree that the order of the negotiations should first be to negotiate the departure of the UK with all the rights and obligations that arise from it and only then to move to the post-exit relationship. Article 50, however, allows for negotiations to begin on the framework of future relations and therefore it is said in the draft text of the negotiating guidelines to be approved by the leaders of the member states at their extraordinary summit on 29 April that “preliminary and preparatory discussions” can begin when “sufficient progress” is achieved in the first phase of the negotiations. According to European Council President Donald Tusk (Poland, EPP), this can happen in September if there is no delay. He said this before Theresa May surprisingly announced snap elections. European diplomats expect that the elections will lead to a delay of the start of negotiations.

The number one priority to the EU is resolving the issue of the status of European citizens. In this sense, the EU looks much better prepared for the negotiations than the UK. In the document prepared for Saturday, the most important priorities for the Union are addressed to the smallest detail. The EU wants the definition of the scope of the part of the agreement that affects the status of European citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU to be based on Directive 2004/38, which includes economically active citizens – workers and self-employed – but also inactive people living in the UK before the date of leaving, as well as members of their families. For the EU, it is also important to take into account Regulation 883/2004, which regulates the coordination of social security systems.

The EU will insist and so far the UK is willing to accept that everyone who has lived five years in the UK until the date of leaving can be given permanent residence. A simplification of the documentation required by the British administration is also required. This is currently one of the hottest issues, as dozens of EU citizens have already been forced to fill a 85-page application. In some cases, there has been a refusal to allow permanent residence to people who have lived in Britain for decades, have married British citizens or other cases governed by European law. The draft guidelines state that the UK must issue residence permits through a “simple and swift” procedure that is either free of charge or the fee does not exceed what local citizens pay for the issuing of such documents.

The EU also calls for all rights stemming from the free movement of workers in the EU, which means access to the labour market, business creation, social and tax benefits, training, housing, collective rights, to continue to apply to European citizens after Great Britain’s exit. The Kingdom will also be required to continue to recognise diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications obtained in any member state before the date of exit.

On the financial part, the EU starting point is not the presentation of the British budget in the autumn of 2016, but the date of exit. The Union believes that there should be a single financing agreement covering all of the UK’s financial commitments related to its membership in all EU institutions such as the ECB, the EIB, various funds and schemes such as the European Development Fund and the Turkey refugee funding scheme. The EU believes it is right for the UK to bear the costs of the relocation of EU agencies and institutions currently on its territory. The document has not yet presented a specific amount, variations of which have been rotating in the media for months and range from several billion to 60 billion euros. The document speaks of the need to negotiate a commitment calculation mechanism based on the official consolidated annual accounts of the Union.

Great Britain’s obligations being based on historical data about the share of its participation before the date of exit is another European negotiating position. The Union will also insist on agreeing on a liability payment mechanism to minimise the consequences for the EU budget of Britain’s exit.

Another controversy between the EU and the UK is the negotiation of future trade relations with third countries. According to the EU, European law does not allow the UK to start negotiations on future trade agreements before it exits. This is also discussed in detail in the European Parliament resolution voted on 5 April with 516 votes in favour, 133 against and 50 abstentions. The document refers to Article 4 (3) of the EU Treaty and states that if the UK does not comply, there will be consequences, including its exclusion from trade negotiation procedures. The European Parliament has a key role to play in the negotiations as the exit transaction requires the signature of the EP as well and the institution has already made a request that it is not willing to grant concessions.

To Great Britain there is only one bilateral issue to be resolved in the negotiation process, and that is the border between it and Ireland. According to the EU, however, the negotiations will have to address the cases of Gibraltar and Cyprus. According to the diplomatic source with whom euinsidetalked, the UK does not exclude the emergence of other bilateral issues, among which it is possible to find topics such as the status of Polish citizens in the UK, huge investments in France, etc. Although the UK is aware that new bilateral issues may arise, it is strongly opposed to them being included in the negotiations. This was also one of the subjects during the debate on the European Parliament resolution in Strasbourg on 5 April.

The text of the resolution, as well as the new guidelines proposed by Donald Tusk, has infuriated the main culprit for the Brexit Nigel Farage (EFDD, Great Britain), who called the EU “mafia”. “You think we are a hostage, we are not, we are free to go”, he said. Farage is also outraged by the discussions on the UK’s financial commitments. Ashley Fox (ECR, Great Britain) in turn expressed his outrage at insisting that Gibraltar be part of the talks. The new leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Paul Nuttall, said it was even offensive that Spain threatened to veto the Brexit if the Gibraltar issue were not resolved.

Spanish MEP Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (Socialists and Democrats) explained that Spain has no intention of fighting over Gibraltar’s sovereignty, but has long-standing claims that remain valid and must be negotiated. “But it’s quite unacceptable in the 21st century that we have a colony here in Europe and I hope you’d understand the Spanish position”, he said. For the British MEP of the Greens and European Free Alliance group Molly Scott the case of Gibraltar is a symbol of Britain’s loss of commitment to peace and basic standards of diplomacy.

Although the White Paper on Brexit and other UK exit documents explicitly state that the United Kingdom will negotiate and leave as a solid entity, the debate in the European Parliament has revealed intra-Kingdom tensions. Irish, Welsh and Scottish MEPs were adamant that the interests of their communities need to be adequately accounted for and their administrations should be involved in each phase of the negotiations. “I do not accept that the interests of Wales can be ignored by the UK Government, but that is exactly what is happening, despite the publication of the white paper ‘Securing Wales’ Future'”, said Jill Evans (Greens/EFA, Great Britain) .

“Mrs May and Nigel Farage do not speak for Scotland, do not speak for me, and do not speak for 48% of the UK’s population. The UK is not one bloc, much as Mrs May would like it to be; the UK is a complicated set of various interests, all of which are better reflected in this resolution than in anything the UK Government has put forward to date”, said Scottish MEP Alyn Smith (Greens / EFA). Martina Anderson of the far left-wing group GUE/NGL (Sinn Fein) turned directly to Ireland Prime Minister Enda Kenny with a call to act to protect the Good Friday Peace Agreement, which ended the over 30-year-long conflict in Northern Ireland. “You [Enda Kenny] must be the voice of the people, north and south”, the MEP urged.

Brexit means Brexit

Until the British prime minister officially submitted the exit notice, the subject was dominated by the British perspective. There were threats across the Channel that the UK would do whatever it takes to protect its citizens, even if it meant sacrificing the European migrants. It was also said that Britain would fight to preserve London’s status as the financial hub of Europe, even hearing calls for dumping. There was talk of stout determination to leave, even if it meant a hard exit, that is without a deal. But when the EU began discussing its negotiating strategy, the moods on The Island sharply changed, and the positions softened. One of the most curious reactions was the displeasure, coming from the government, of the departure of the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency.

Cold winds blew from Brussels this week regarding financial services as well. There has been a significant change in the draft, which is still being prepared for the summit on Saturday, compared to the original text. As EUobserver reports, the EU intends to exclude financial services from a possible future trade deal with the UK. This one of the commitments Theresa May made in shaping the British position. In order to continue to have access to EU markets, the City has to work according to the Union’s regulatory and supervisory standards. Financial services are one of the main priorities for the UK. According to the Global Financial Centres index, 

in 2016 London was the world’s leading financial centre in front of New York, Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo.

The reason for his success over everyone else, according to a document of the European Parliament from December, is the dynamic business environment, the predictability of the British legal system, the domination of English as lingua franca. The European subsidiaries of half of the world’s financial firms are based in London. Over a million people are engaged in the UK’s financial sector, and if you add all the accompanying activities, such as legal, accounting, and consulting services, the number goes up to 2.2 million. The financial sector has a 11% share in British Gross Domestic Product. EU-related financial services revenue in the UK is 23%. The UK share of the financial services market in the EU is 24%.

This makes the sector very attractive to EU financial centres, such as Frankfurt and Paris, who have already declared their desire to take the place of London after Britain leaves the EU. There are tough negotiations coming up and the uncertainty is great. To the EU, the most important thing is for European citizens not to become a bargaining chip. The Union’s strategy is to make a pedagogical exercise of the UK negotiations. For this purpose, the Union’s chief negotiator, former Commissioner for Internal Market and Services in the second José Manuel Barroso Commission, Michel Barniersaid he would make the negotiations as transparent as possible. “This will not be a secret negotiation but public”, he assured MEPs during the Brexit debate on April 5th.

*An analogy with the “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” movie

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in Europe, UK0 Comments

Ruling Britannia: The Evidence that Britain is Legislating its Way to Authoritarianism

During the short course of the 21st century Britain’s ruling class has pushed its democracy in a direction where the expansion of state powers is undeniably leading the country towards authoritarianism.

The United Nations privacy chief has called the situation “worse than scary.” Even UK courts judged that the activities of the government was in breach of human rights law, so legislators put forward Bills to legalise it. Apple CEO Tim Cook was particularly critical, noting that new laws would have dire consequences if introduced, which they were. Harvit Kambo a director at Privacy International said:

“It’s sad that the Snowden revelations backfired so spectacularly in Britain. Rather than rolling back powers, they’ve been used to legitimise these practices.”

Britain is now regarded as an endemic surveillance society. It is run, not by honourable men and women looking to serve their country but by a pack of snarling wolves, ensuring the flock never steps out of line. But surveillance is just the start and where it starts is just as alarming.

Just think about the evidence for a minute. Authoritarianism is defined as: “the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.” We already have much of this statement in Britain. In 2014 it was estimated by government that one million school pupils had been biometrically finger-printed. But as it turned out, on further private investigation through Freedom of Information requests the best guesstimate of the 8.2 million attending school was that 6 million were on a biometric database of some sort starting from the age of just four – and that was 10 years ago. By now one would expect that number to be close to 100% with facial recognition and other more recent technologies.

Open Democracy UK wrote five years ago:

“Imagine a country in which the state has access to all the personal communications of all citizens and, thanks to this official mastery of the electronic environment, access also to all personal files and photographs, which it can survey without a warrant and at the whim of the police and secret services, whose penetration by corporate corruption is well documented. Imagine the authorities of this country then passing legislation which gives those same authorities the right to claim any issue that exposes the behaviour or mis-behaviour of those same authorities to be an issue of ‘national security’ which cannot be exposed in court. Who could we be talking about? Putin’s Russia? The ‘new’ China? They should be so lucky. Say hello to a Britain ruled for the first time in living memory by a government forged with the support of Liberals.

High-level Stasi functionaries pose for the camera in 1970’s. One of its main tasks was spying on the population, mainly through a vast network of citizens turned informants, and fighting any opposition by overt and covert measures. It had 80,000 full-time operatives spying on 16 million citizens – far less of a capability than the British gov’t has given itself in just 15 years over its own population.

Since the year 2000 Britain has seen a whole raft of laws designed to transfer power from the people to the state. We’ve had RIPA or the ‘Snoopers Charter’ and the Investigatory Powers Act giving unprecedented and extreme surveillance powers to the state not seen in any democratic country anywhere in the world. We’ve seen unlawful imprisonment legislation given in the form of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act, citizens being hunted down for dog fouling, underage sun bed use, not paying a BBC licence fee and even feeding pigeons though an Act designed to catch terrorists and enemies of the state. We now have Public Space Protection Orders – a geographically defined version of ASBOS that could severely restrict people’s freedoms in urban spaces. Here, sleeping rough, or feeding the homeless can be a criminal offence and at the will of local authorities can also prohibit “under 16 year olds gathering in groups of three or more.”

We now have POPs or Privately Owned Public Space orders. This is where the privatisation of our cities’ public spaces is escalating. For instance in London’s ‘square mile’ there is not a single square foot of space designated as publicly accessible, mainly to stop protests against the banking behemoths and their egregious acts of criminality.

Today, we now have ‘Closed Material Proceedings’ or secret courts. So-called closed material procedure cases  were extended to the civil courts under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and in the space of just two years, secret court cases doubled. This is where the judge sees evidence provided by the state but no-one else does, not even the accused. The Guardian reported that

Under the law and practice as it stands, there will be a body of case law that touches on matters of great public interest, but for which there are no processes in place to ensure it will ever see the light of day” – these courts are truly dystopian in character.

The Trade Union Bill and the Organised Crime and Police Act aim to stop public protest and is essentially an attack on civil liberties which are respected in any free, democratic society. Minsters, hell bent on making huge cuts to public services and privatising everything in a neoliberal fire-sale of state assets built up over generations have been firing hundreds of thousands in the name of ‘efficiency.’ They, and the corporations that benefit wanted to ensure that strike action and protests were stopped so MP’s legislated against citizens valid concerns and subsequent public protest.

The proposed Espionage Act looks to ban reporting of future big data leaks. Leakers, whistleblowers and journalists are the main target. The UK parliamentary expenses scandal was a major political scandal that emerged in 2009 and aroused widespread anger among the UK public and resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements of politicians. A leak to the Daily Telegraph of the same type today would result in prison sentences of whistleblowers, journalists and editors who would, under these new laws, be treated as foreign spies passing sensitive information to an enemy of the state, that attracts a 14 year prison sentence for the public service it delivered. It won’t be long before anyone reporting new Snowden revelations or Wikileaks files will be treated the same.

In this photo dated Saturday, Jan. 14, 2017, journalist Julia Breen works on a story in the newsroom of The Northern Echo newspaper in Darlington, England. The newspaper’s journalists are among scores of reporters who have been spied on by British police over the past 5 years, according to court documents, although Cleveland Police issued a statement to deny allegations. (AP Photo/Raphael Satter)

The Digital Economy Bill is another attack on the civil liberties and freedoms of the nation. TalkTalk’s director of regulation, Andrew Heaney, said the way in which the Bill had passed through the House of Commons had been “undemocratic”.

“It’s a bad day for democracy, bordering on disgraceful, when such a complicated bill, which could negatively affect so many people, gets shoved through the Commons so quickly. It’s an appalling indictment of our democracy that this can happen with a bill which requires a great deal of understanding. Surely our MPs need to scrutinise the Bill for a longer period than two days.” This Bill has since been extended as they all seem to do nowadays to further curtail our rights as citizens in a salami-slice motion of mission creep.

Nat le Roux who co-founded The UK Constitution Society more recently wrote an article for the London School of Economics and Democratic Audit entitled “Drifting Towards Instability” – here he wrote the passage:

A pessimist could easily believe that we are drifting towards institutional instability. Governments have become increasingly willing to alter very long-standing constitutional settlements for reasons which often appear short-term and politically self- interested. A serious clash between government and the senior judges over the extent of the courts’ powers of judicial review seems increasingly likely. The constitutional position of the civil service is being challenged by the current government in a way which would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Government ministers are increasingly bold in asserting their democratic mandate – or rather an over-representation of it – to trump all opposition. All of this is taking place against a background of the general breakdown of public confidence in the political elite. Not so long ago, Britain was widely admired across much of the world as a model of strong constitutional democracy. It is hard to believe that is the case today.

Even though the government were eventually forced to admit their illegal actions of intercepting legally privileged conversations with lawyers, journalists and activists – this has been no barrier for future spying operations on law-abiding citizens.

For instance, British journalist Julia Breen’s scoop about racism at her local police force didn’t just get her on the front page, it got her put under full state surveillance.

In the months that followed Breen’s exclusive, her calls were logged, those of her colleague Graeme Hetherington and even their modest-sized newspaper’s little switchboard was fully surveilled in an effort to unmask their sources. The two were stunned when they eventually discovered the scale of the spying.

“It just never even crossed our minds,” Breen said in a recent interview; “I don’t know if I was quite naive, but on a regional newspaper you don’t expect your local police force to do this.”

This scale of state surveillance at the local level on journalists in the Northern Echo in the English market town of Darlington (population 106,000) should give us stark warning that the paranoid state and its agencies are now completely out of control and we have much to worry about as it marches onwards denying citizens their basic rights and freedoms and defying the laws of the land.

As Dominic Raab writes in his first-rate book ‘The Assault on Liberty’, government “has hyperactively produced more Home Office legislation than all the other governments in our history combined, accumulating a vast arsenal of new legal powers and creating more than three thousand additional criminal offences”

Whilst Britain is obviously a way off having something like the East German Stasi who were described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to have ever existed, it should not be forgotten that Britain today has considerably more effective surveillance powers that East Germany ever did. It should also not be forgotten that that part of the world now have laws to protect their citizens from those imposed by the British government over its own citizens. In the space of just 30 years, East Germany has become a modern democracy whilst Britain heads off in the opposite direction.

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK government moves to stop war crimes prosecution of Blair

Image result for Tony Blair CARTOON
By Adam Garrie | The Duran 

English law courts allow for something called a private prosecution. Typically, criminals are prosecuted by the state body Crown Prosecution Services, but on some occasions private individuals can bring forward criminal charges against another person or entity they believe is guilty of a criminal offence.

Currently, there are attempts by private citizens to bring former British Prime Minister Tony Blair before a criminal court over alleged war crimes in Iraq which led to the slaughter of over a million Iraqis.

However, Britain’s current Attorney General Jeremy Wright is moving to stop such a prosecution.

Wright’s spokesman has stated,

“It’s not unusual for the attorney general to intervene in cases in order to represent the public interest. He has sought to intervene in this case because it raises important issues about the scope of the criminal law”.

There are several odd things about this statement.

First of all, if it raises the scope of criminal law, it means that the crime of stealing a car can be prosecuted and is in fact done so on a daily basis, but the far more violent act of war criminality cannot be.

Secondly, Wright implies that a private prosecution of  Blair would not be in the public good. If holding leaders who engage in illegal warfare is not in the public good, I fail to see what is.

The real danger to the ruling elite is that English Common Law is based on precedent. This would mean that if Blair was convicted for war crimes, so too could many of his successors. This is a precedent that the elite clearly do not want to set due to the basic principle of self-preservation.

And then there is another problem. War criminality is not currently on the English statute books. It is an international offence that could only be applied in an international court.

As we all know, international justice for war criminals is exclusively reserved for Africans and Serbs. Tony Blair does not fit the racial profile.

Case closed.

Posted in UKComments Off on UK government moves to stop war crimes prosecution of Blair

Britain First shared a video of ‘Muslims celebrating Paris terror’ and it immediately backfired


The leader of Britain First shared a video of ‘Muslims celebrating Paris terror’ and it immediately backfired


Paul Golding, leader of the far-right group Britain First has shared a debunked video in an attempt to make a political point.

In 2015, groups similar to Britain First started prolifically sharing a video of cheering and happy people, claiming that it showed ‘London Muslims celebrating terror attacks’.

The video itself, which actually shows British Pakistanis celebrating a cricket victory in 2009, was thoroughly debunked in an article by The Independent at the time.

But far be it from Paul Golding to let facts stand in the way.

He re-shared the cricket celebration video with the comment:

Oh look, a crowd of ‘moderate’ Muslims celebrating the Paris terror attack in London.


Twitter users have been asking him exactly what’s going on.

@GoldingBF Hi Paul, this video is from 2009. Could you explain why you posted it with this heading please? 

@GoldingBF Paris isn’t mention, no radicalised flags. Are you sure this isn’t a cricket celebration? English passers-by are even being embraced?

It fooled nobody:

@GoldingBF This is a disgusting tweet. Why on earth would you take this cricket celebration and twist it like this

@GoldingBF They’re celebrating a cricket game victory, you numpty.


Did he even watch the video?

@GoldingBF Paul, are you thick or just a liar? They’re clearly saying ‘Pakistan’ over and over. Did Pakistan commission the attack? Jesus wept man.

Twitter user George Cousin summed up his thoughts succinctly.

Posted in UKComments Off on Britain First shared a video of ‘Muslims celebrating Paris terror’ and it immediately backfired

UK Friends of ‘Israel’ chair apologizes for burning New Testament


UK Friends of Israel chair apologizes for burning New Testament

“If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a) ‘SHOAH’
If Americans Knew 

The chair of the “Friends of Israel” caucus of Britain’s UK Independence party (UKIP) apologized recently for tweeting a picture of himself burning a New Testament.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reports that Shneur Odze, a candidate for mayor of Manchester, found the New Testament in his synagogue.

He took the offending volume outside and set it on fire, then posted photos of the book burning and wrote on Twitter:  “Grateful to whoever put a missionary bible amongst our synagogue’s books. Was wondering what I’d burn my Chametz with.”

According to JTA, Odze “felt he had no choice but to burn the book because he did not want to pass on what he believes is false religion to someone else and said that throwing a religious text in the garbage was distasteful, especially because it also contains the Five Books of Moses.”

The Times of Israel reports that the New Testament was in a Hebrew-English Bible published by the Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures, and had been placed in the synagogue without permission by a member of the Christian group.

JTA reports that Odze, a former city councilman for north London for the Conservative Party, is a rabbi and member of Chabad-Lubavitch.

Parliament Today reported in 2014 that at a UKIP Friends of Israel reception, Rabbi Odze said: “UKIP doesn’t just talk the talk on its support for the people of Israel. Only last week UKIP Councillors in Dudley blocked an attempt by Labour to impose a sanctions policy on the Council. It was UKIP Councillors in Dudley that had this proposal quashed.  And it is UKIP Councillors who are leading the fight against anti-Semitism in town halls across the country.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on UK Friends of ‘Israel’ chair apologizes for burning New Testament

Shoah’s pages


May 2017
« Apr