BBC exodus: Britons reportedly overwhelm phone lines & website in rush to cancel TV licenses
RT | October 25, 2020
It appears that so many people want to cancel their TV licenses in Britain that the BBC cannot cope with the outflow. However, some critics suggest the broadcaster is deliberately hampering the process.
“We have more calls than usual at the moment, and they are taking longer to answer as we operate in accordance with Covid-19 government guidelines,” a spokesman for the BBC told the Express newspaper, when asked why its phone lines were clogged.
The BBC is the primary beneficiary of the British TV licensing scheme. Anyone who wishes to watch or record live television in the UK has to pay a £157.50 ($205) annual fee. And the tens of thousands of people who dodge it face prosecution and fines each year – and may even be sent to prison.
However, the broadcaster has recently been facing an outflow of paying license holders, in part because an increasing number of Britons that the BBC does not deliver on the promise of being politically non-partial, which is enshrined in its charter.
Unfortunately for those who can’t get through to cancel their licenses by phone, their chances of doing so online may be equally frustrating, according to Defund the BBC, a campaign group that wants to reform the entire system.
“The BBC appears to be deliberately preventing people from cancelling their TV licences by bouncing them back and forth between their website and call centre, neither of which are currently functional,” campaign director Rebecca Ryan told the newspaper. “Imagine if this happened with vehicle tax? There would rightly be uproar.”
In its latest annual report, the BBC said its license fee income has dropped by five percent due to several factors, including “a small reduction in the number of paid licences.” The financial pressure on the broadcaster may increase still further soon, if the British government goes ahead with its plan to decriminalize license fee evasion, potentially making the practice even more widespread.
Former UK Cabinet Secretary Claims London Staging ‘Discreet’ Cyber Attacks on Russia
RT | October 24, 2020
London has used “discreet” and “covert” measures to retaliate against Moscow for allegedly carrying out a chemical weapon attack on British soil, back in 2018, a former top adviser to PM Boris Johnson disclosed on Saturday.
The explosive claim comes from Lord Mark Sedwill, who until last month served as the most senior adviser and head of the civil service in Johnson’s cabinet. He held the same positions under former prime minister Theresa May, during whose term the Salisbury affair unfolded.
Speaking to Times Radio, Sedwill said Russia has “some vulnerabilities that we can exploit.” So London’s response to the incident included not only publicly accusing Russia of being behind the attack and expelling its diplomats, but also “a series of other discreet measures including tackling some of the illicit money flows out of Russia, and covert measures as well, which obviously I can’t talk about,” the former official said.
“The Russians know that they had to pay a higher price than they had expected for that operation.”
Sedwill would not explain how stopping illicit money flowing out of Russia would hurt the Russian government or why the UK didn’t act sooner to crack down on those financial crimes. Presumably, in his view, President Vladimir Putin’s power relies on allowing crooked officials and businessmen to siphon the Russian national wealth and the British government was content with it as long as the UK was on the receiving end.
A different view is taken in Moscow, where officials have repeatedly accused the British of harboring Russian criminals and welcoming illicitly gained cash.
The Times implied that the “covert measures” mentioned by Sedwill included the UK using its cyber offensive capabilities against Russia.
The Salisbury poisoning happened in March 2018. Former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter were injured by what the British government described as a uniquely Russian chemical weapon, but have since recovered. London identified two people from Russia as the culprits, calling them agents of the Russian military intelligence.
Moscow denied any involvement in the poisoning and said London had stonewalled all attempts to properly investigate what had happened.
Western Propaganda Over Skripal and Navalny Show Remarkable Similarities
By James ONeill – New Eastern Outlook – 20.10.2020
There was once a notion that enjoyed wide acceptance throughout the world, especially in those countries that shared a common heritage with the United Kingdom, that was known as “British justice”. It was probably always a flawed notion, but such was the power of British colonialism that it enjoyed a reputation nonetheless. Recent history however has put a substantial dent in the mythology. Two recent examples illustrate the point.
The first was the case involving the father and daughter duo of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Sergei as is well known was a traitor to his native Russia. He was caught, tried and imprisoned. After several years in jail serving his sentence, he was the subject of a prisoner swap with Russian spies held in British prisons. He was released and immediately travelled to England where he settled in the town of Salisbury.
The house he occupied was owned by the British government. It was constantly monitored with a security camera. Sergei was visited by his daughter Yulia, a resident of Moscow, where she also had a fiancé, as well as friends and relatives.
On a visit to her father they left his house and visited her mother’s grave. They then went into Salisbury city centre and had a meal. This was followed by a drink at a nearby pub. They then went to a local park where they fed the ducks (along with some children). They both then suddenly took ill whilst sitting on a park bench. They were attended to by a woman and her daughter. The woman just happened to be the chief nurse of the British Army, with the rank of Colonel. No plausible explanation has ever been given for their just happening to be in the park at that time.
Sergei and Yulia were rushed to hospital in an unconscious state where they remained for some time. They recovered, but apart from a brief carefully staged television statement, neither has been seen or heard of again.
The Russian Embassy in London has made repeated requests to speak with Yulia, but this has been refused. What the western media never point out is that this refusal of consular access is a gross breach of international law. Where the Skripals are now, or even if they are still alive, is simply unknown.
The British government and British media were quick to blame Russia for what allegedly happened to the Skripals. The complete absence of any evidence to support this claim was apparently not a barrier. Neither has the growth in continuing violations of international law been deemed a suitable topic of discussion in the British mainstream media.
The public were subjected to the charade of chemical cleansing of the Skripal house, despite the attending police officers wearing no protective equipment and the domestic cat being totally unaffected. It was a complete charade, ably assisted by a non-sceptical media who were content to publish or broadcast the Government’s fabrications and turn a blind eye to the glaring absence of anything approaching actual evidence of any Russian complicity in wrongdoing.
The counter-productive effects of Russia actually damaging or killing Skripal were ignored. This charade, with its manifest lies, duplicity and multiple improbabilities has been brought vividly to mind by the latest alleged Russian malpractice of what happened to the dissident politician Alexi Navalny.
The parallels are eerie, right down to the alleged role of “Novichok” in causing Mr Navalny’s illness. We were initially told that Navalny was poisoned with a cup of tea he drank before boarding his plane. Even the perpetrators of this fiction eventually realised its inherent improbability and abandoned it.
Instead, we are not told, the “Novichok” was in water bottles that Navalny left behind in his hotel room. Very conveniently, ours after being vacated, the hotel room had not been serviced, allowing Navalny’s supporters to recover the allegedly infected bottles of water. These bottles were then sent to Germany but have never been produced for independent analysis.
Navalny was treated in a Russian hospital before being transferred to Germany. The Russian doctors performed all the usual analyses of Navalny’s blood, but did not detect the presence of Novichok. This is allegedly suddenly discovered by the German doctors who, despite repeated requests, have failed to share the evidence with their Russian counterparts.
Instead, the Germans claimed to have sent the evidence to the OPCW who, when asked for the evidence by the Russians, were referred back to Germany. We are expected to take this farcical performance with an unquestioning and straight face.
Navalny duly recovers and declares that he wants to return to Russia. Perhaps he hopes that all this publicity will help him improve upon the less than 2% of the vote he received when he last stood for elective office. Once again, the much feared and lethal capacity of Novichok had failed!
What has emerged however, are hints as to the real motivation behind whatever caused Navalny’s illness. The Americans, who have long bitterly opposed Nord Stream 2 reiterated their demand that the contract for the supply of Russian gas to Germany be cancelled. (at huge compensation costs) They just happened to have an alternative available, albeit at 40% higher cost to the German public, and with the additional benefit of increasing German reliance upon the United States. German opinion polls strongly suggest that the German – United States alliance is rapidly losing its favour with the German public.
At the time of writing, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is holding firm on the original contract with the Russians, but the pressure to cancel Nord Stream 2 may prove irresistible.
While seemingly unrelated at first glance, the Skripal and Navalny incidents show some remarkable parallels. Both are manifestly fake incidents. Both have been used by the respective governments, the United Kingdom and Germany, to challenge the reputation and reliability of the Russian government. Both have been sought to be capitalised upon by forces opposed to any sign of rapprochement and goodwill shown to Russia, whether it is an international football tournament (the last World Cup finals) or the provision of vital and cheaper sources of energy to Europe.
From the American point of view there are several pluses. It inhibits the increasing restlessness of the German public to still being occupied and dictated to by the Americans 75 years after World War II ended. It provides an excuse to maintain a US military presence in countries close to Russia to counter the Russian “threat”, a fictional concept that the Americans never tire of trotting out.
It also provides a perfect opportunity for the United States gas industry to make huge profits at a time when the world’s energy structures are undergoing major realignments, not least because of the increasingly economic and political importance of the growth of China’s influence in the world.
From the United States point of view, Navalny is a win-win situation. The industry profits; their presence in Europe is reinforced; and damage is done to Russia’s reputation as well as its economy.
Just like the unfortunate Mr Skripal, Mr Navalny has been used and abused as a puppet in a much wider geopolitical game. That it is the ordinary people of Russia and Germany who suffer is the least concern of the American puppet masters for whom the retention of their fading credibility is more important than the safety of the world and its citizens.
James O’Neill is an Australian-based former Barrister at Law.
European hypocrisy: empty words for Palestine, deadly weapons for Israel
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 20, 2020
In theory, Europe and the United States stand on completely opposite sides when it comes to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. While the US government has fully embraced the tragic status quo created by 53 years of Israeli military occupation, the EU continues to advocate a negotiated settlement that is predicated on respect for international law.
In practice, however, despite the seeming rift between Washington and Brussels, the outcome is, essentially, the same. The US and Europe are Israel’s largest trade partners, weapon suppliers and political advocates.
One of the reasons that the illusion of an even-handed Europe has been maintained for so long lies partly in the Palestinian leadership itself. Politically and financially abandoned by Washington, the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas has turned to the European Union as its only possible saviour.
“Europe believes in the two-state solution,” PA Prime Minister, Mohammad Ishtayeh, said during a video discussion with the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs on October 12. Unlike the US, Europe’s continued advocacy of the defunct two-state solution qualifies it to fill the massive gap created by Washington’s absence.
Ishtayeh called on EU leaders to “recognize the State of Palestine in order for us, and you, to break the status quo.”
However, there are already 139 countries that recognise the State of Palestine. While that recognition is a clear indication that the world remains firmly pro-Palestinian, recognizing Palestine as a State changes little on the ground. What is needed are concerted efforts to hold Israel accountable for its violent occupation as well as real action to support the struggle of Palestinians.
Not only has the EU failed at this, it is, in fact, doing the exact opposite: funding Israel, arming its military and silencing its critics.
Listening to Ishtayeh’s words, one gets the impression that the top Palestinian official is addressing a conference of Arab, Muslim or socialist countries. “I call upon your Parliament and your distinguished Members of this Parliament, that Europe not wait for the American President to come up with ideas … We need a third party who can really remedy the imbalance in the relationship between an occupied people and an occupier country, that is Israel,” he said.
But is the EU qualified to be that ‘third party’? No. For decades, European governments have been an integral part of the US-Israel party. Just because the Donald Trump administration has, recently, taken a sharp turn in favour of Israel should not automatically transform Europe’s historical pro-Israel bias to be mistaken for pro-Palestinian solidarity.
Last June, more than 1,000 European parliamentarians representing various political parties issued a statement expressing “serious concerns” about Trump’s so-called Deal of the Century and opposing Israeli annexation of nearly a third of the West Bank. However, the pro-Israel US Democratic Party, including some traditionally staunch supporters of Israel, were equally critical of Israel’s plan because, in their minds, annexation means that a two-state solution would be made impossible.
While US Democrats made it clear that a Joe Biden administration would not reverse any of Trump’s actions should Biden be elected, European governments have also made it clear that they will not take a single action to dissuade – let alone punish – Israel for its repeated violations of international law.
Lip service is all that Palestinians have obtained from Europe, as well as much money, which was largely pocketed by loyalists of Abbas in the name of ‘State-building’ and other fantasies. Tellingly, much of the imaginary Palestinian State infrastructure that was subsidised by Europe in recent years has been blown up, demolished or construction ceased by the Israeli military during its various wars and raids. Yet, neither did the EU punish Israel, nor did the PA cease from asking for more money to continue funding a non-existent State.
Not only did the EU fail to hold Israel accountable for its ongoing occupation and human rights violations, it is practically financing Israel, as well. According to Defence News, a quarter of all of Israel’s military export contracts (totalling $7.2 billion in 2019 alone) is allocated to European countries.
Moreover, Europe is Israel’s largest trading partner, absorbing one-third of Israel’s total exports and shipping to Israel nearly 40% of its total import. These numbers also include products made in illegal Jewish settlements.
Additionally, the EU labours to incorporate Israel into the European way of life through cultural and music contests, sports competitions and in myriad other ways. While the EU possesses powerful tools that can be used to exact political concessions and enforce respect for international law, it opts to simply do very little.
Compare this with the recent ultimatum the EU has given the Palestinian leadership, linking EU aid to the PA’s financial ties with Israel. Last May, Abbas took the extraordinary step of considering all agreements with Israel and the US to be null and void. Effectively, this means that the PA would no longer be accountable for the stifling status quo that was created by the Oslo Accords, which was repeatedly violated by Tel Aviv and Washington. Severing ties with Israel also meant that the PA would refuse to accept nearly $150 million in tax revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the PA. This Palestinian step, while long overdue, was necessary.
Instead of supporting Abbas’ move, the EU criticized it, refusing to provide additional aid for Palestinians until Abbas restores ties with Israel and accepts the tax money. According to Axios news portal, Germany, France, the UK and even Norway are leading the charge.
Germany, in particular, has been relentless in its support for Israel. For months, it has advocated on behalf of Israel to spare Tel Aviv a war crimes investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC). It has placed activists, who advocate the boycott of Israel, on trial. Recently, it has confirmed the shipment of missile boats and other military hardware to ensure the superiority of the Israeli navy in a potential war against Arab enemies. Germany is not alone. Israel and most European countries are closing ranks in terms of their unprecedented military cooperation and trade ties, including natural gas deals.
Continuing to make references to the unachievable two-state solution, while arming, funding and doing more business with Israel is the very definition of hypocrisy. The truth is that Europe should be held as accountable as the US in emboldening and sustaining the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Yet, while Washington is openly pro-Israel, the EU has played a more clever game: selling Palestinians empty words while selling Israel lethal weapons.
Read also:
Zionist War on Palestinian Festival in Rome is Ominous Sign of Things to Come
Mauritian PM calls out UK & US duplicity, revives colonial row over evicted Chagos islanders
RT | October 19, 2020
Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth has slammed the UK and US for their mistreatment of the Chagossian people, evicted from their homeland by the British in the 1960s and 1970s so that the US could use it as a military base.
Speaking on Sunday in the Mauritian capital of Port Louis, the PM lamented how the British and Americans acted when they evicted thousands of people from their homeland on the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean.
When we hear the British and Americans talking on the international stage, they teach lessons. They criticize. The English and the Americans are hypocrites.
Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were ceded to Britain in 1814 after the defeat of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. The British government later purchased Chagos from Mauritius in 1965, with Mauritius later saying it was forced to hand over the territory in order to secure independence from the British Empire. The Chagossians were subsequently evicted to provide the US with an unpopulated island for a military base, and sent to live in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles.
Jugnauth told the crowd, mainly composed of Chagossians and their descendants, that the UK continues to ignore the 2019 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ordered Britain to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.”
“Despite the advisory opinion in favor of Mauritius, the English still do not respect the judgment, with the complicity of the Americans,” the prime minister added.
He also urged the Chagossians to protect their own identity, as he kicked off the first consultative committee for safeguarding and promoting the sega tambour Chagos – a genre of music indigenous to the Chagos Archipelago.
Also on rt.com ‘Illegal colonial occupier’: Mauritius blasts UK as it skips UN deadline to return Chagos Islands housing US airbase
Despite the judgement of the ICJ and a motion approved by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2019, the UK has shown no signs of changing its stance, calling the ICJ ruling an “advisory opinion, not a judgment.”
In response to the international rulings in 2019, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that the UK “has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814,” adding that “Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognize its claim.”
UK Minister’s Christmas Message to Universities…. Adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition or I’ll axe your funding!
Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson in 10 Downing Street. Credit: Pippa Fowles/ No 10 Downing Street.
By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | October 14, 2020
Gavin Williamson is Education Secretary in the screwball government of Boris Johnson. And he has just threatened universities that they could have their funding cut if they don’t adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism before Christmas.
Williamson wrote to vice-chancellors last week saying he was “frankly disappointed” that there were still “too many disturbing incidents of anti-Semitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this”, and that the number of universities adopting the definition “remains shamefully low”.
“These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular,” he said.
He insists that adopting the IHRA definition “is morally the right thing to do” – and he underlines morally! “You should have no doubt: this government has zero tolerance towards anti-Semitism. If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act.”
Williamson is asking officials to consider directing the Office for Students (OfS) to impose a new regulatory condition of registration or suspend funding for universities at which anti-Semitic incidents occur and which haven’t signed up to the definition.
“While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of anti-Semitism.
“The repugnant belief that anti-Semitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that anti-Semitism is abhorrent.”
The OfS said they will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure the IHRA definition’s wider adoption. But Universities UK were more cautious: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle anti-Semitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.” And that last bit is what Williamson ought to have considered before stupidly going off the deep end.
Individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions
Williamson’s first problem is his ignorance. He’s completely at odds with the opinion of top legal experts who were 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 which 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 anyone else.
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”.
Read Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Williamson, which 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, check Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says the same sort of thing, subject of course to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.
The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that before accepting the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, two caveats should be included:
- It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
- It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
The Government, in its eagerness to appease the Zionist lobby, dropped the caveats saying they weren’t necessary.
Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC also criticised the definition. Firstly, it wasn’t a legally binding definition so it didn’t have the force of a statutory one. And it couldn’t be considered a legal definition of anti-Semitism as it lacked clarity. Therefore any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.
Secondly, the language was far too vague to be useful as a tool. In Tomlinson’s view the Government’s decision to adopt the IHRA Definition was simply a freestanding statement of policy, a mere suggestion. No public body is under an obligation to adopt or use it, or, given the unsatisfactory nature of the definition, should be criticised for refusing.
He warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the definition then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations. In particular, it cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if they are contrary to those defended by the authorities or by a large part of public opinion”.
So, in Tomlinson’s opinion the IHRA Definition doesn’t mean that calling Israel an apartheid state that practises settler colonialism, or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel, can properly be characterized as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, a public authority seeking to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully.”
Government’s ‘naive stance’
Retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Stephen Sedley, also offered advice criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force. “At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.”
He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.
Sedley was of the view that the IHRA definition is open to manipulation and “what is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee.”
Williamson’s second problem is his prejudice. He’s a fanatical Israel worshipper and far from neutral in the hype surrounding anti-Semitism in the UK. In January 2018 when he was defence secretary he addressed an audience of over 250 Conservative Friends of Israel and supporters, including 50 parliamentarians, telling them that “Britain will always be Israel’s friend” and praising Israel as a “beacon of light and hope, in a region where there is so much hatred and hurt”. He added: “We shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it is to keep that light bright and burning”.
Recalling his visit to Israel as a teenager, he said: “What I found was a liberal, free, exciting country that was so at ease with itself, a country that absorbed and welcomed so many people. That made an enormous impression upon me”.
Williamson condemned the “completely unreasonable… sheer simple hatred” channelled towards Israel and asked: “If we are not there to stand up for a country, whose views and ideals are so close, or are simply our own, what are we as a nation? What are we in politics, if we cannot accept and celebrate the wonderful blooming of democracy that is Israel?”
Achingly funny. And highlighting the UK’s role in the creation of Israel, he said: “Britain and Israel have an amazing relationship. We would like to think that we were very much at the birth of the nation, and very much helped it in terms of its delivery and coming into the world”.
He said that Britain and Israel have “a strong and firm relationship of working together. It’s a relationship of partners…. It’s a partnership of equals. A partnership of friends”.
So hopelessly brainwashed.
Then, in April 2018 at a similar meeting to celebrate the regime’s 70th anniversary Williamson waxed lyrical describing Israel as a “light unto the nations” and adding that not only do Israel and Britain face shared security threats, “our relationship is underpinned by a shared sense of values: justice, compassion, tolerance”. He emphasised that Israel is a “liberal, free and exciting country” and that the UK-Israel relationship is the “cornerstone of so much of what we do in the Middle East”.
Breaching the Ministerial Code?
But Gavin Williamson is not the only Government minister to threaten our universities in this crude manner. A year ago Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick vowed to take action against universities and “parts of local government” who, he said, had become “corrupted” by anti-Semitism. He directed his attack on the universities who receive public money but “choose not to accept our IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and use it when considering matters such as disciplinary procedures”.
Writing in the Sunday Express, he added: “I will use my position as Secretary of State to write to all universities and local authorities to insist that they adopt the IHRA definition at the earliest opportunity.
“I expect them to confirm to me when they do so. Failure to act in this regard is unacceptable and I will be picking up the phone to Vice Chancellors and local government leaders to press for action, if none is forthcoming.”
According to Wikipedia Jenrick’s wife was born in Israel and their children are brought up in the Jewish faith. He told the Board of Deputies he would not tolerate local authority approved BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaigns against those profiteering from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. “Local authorities should not be wasting time and taxpayer’s money by dabbling in foreign policy or pursuing anti-Israel political obsessions, but instead focusing on delivering first class local public services.” The same could be said of his colleague Williamson’s pro-Israel obsession – and his own – when they should be getting on with governing Britain, but of course they are exempt from their own rules.
Both Jenrick and Williamson appear to fall foul of the Ministerial Code. The first two paragraphs are enough to banish them to outer darkness, one would have thought.
1.1 Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. Working relationships…. should be proper and appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.
Elsewhere the Code decrees that “ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests” and they are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life. The Principle of Integrity states that holders of public office “must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their work”.
That suggests to me they ought to be slung out on their ear and never allowed near the levers of power again. But nobody in government is principled enough or has the balls to do it.
What do you think?
Opaque, Unaccountable: Dangers of the New COVID Bio-Security Complex
By Patrick Henningsen | 21st Century Wire | October 13, 2020
Seven months into this crisis, it can’t be any clearer. Just as they did following 9/11, western governments are using the COVID ‘pandemic’ crisis as a pretext to usher in whole new layer of security state bureaucracy, and one which has the power to penetrate more deeply into our lives.
For those who are old enough to remember, prior to September 11, 2001, there was no such thing as a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and yet in a matter of a few years, this federal department quickly grew into one of the largest federal agencies taking in tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each year ever since. In fact, the term Homeland didn’t even exist in America before that. But it was the perceived threat which provided it’s raison d’etre – buttressed by an incessant barrage of propaganda by the state and its media adjuncts, which made this new paradigm a reality. Soon, all of these new state apparatuses and security initiatives were all nestled neatly under the new banner of the Global War on Terror.
In 2020, this exact process has been repeated, only this time the threat isn’t the spectre of radical Islamist terror coming from foreign lands, but something much closer to home.
According to our governments, the new threat is your neighbour, your teacher, the shopkeeper, and even your family members.
And you are a threat to each of them.
And everyone is a threat to each other.
I described this dialectic in the recent special edition of New Dawn Magazine. Here’s a brief passage from my article entitled, “THE GREAT RESET: A Global Flu d’Etat”:
From the onset, computer-modeled predictions wildly overestimated death tolls in key countries. This was not by accident as the initial political and mass media campaign of shock and awe placed populations in an applied cognitive framework of helplessness and dependency.
The same psychological levers were activated in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Psychologically traumatised western electorates not only accepted any level of state and corporate security, infringement of civil liberties and invasion of privacy, many even demanded their governments prosecute overseas wars to eliminate the perceived threat, at that time, of al Qaeda and international terrorism. Subsequently, a new normal was rolled-out globally, a series of endless wars and a leviathan of ‘anti-terror’ measures and digital surveillance at home.
Despite efforts to try and convince the public that everyone is a potential terrorist, the climate of fear was difficult to maintain. The genius of the COVID crisis is that the Establishment has now managed to convince us that everyone is a potential carrier of a deadly pathogen and that anyone who so much as sneezes in the vicinity of any- one else could not only kill them but also trigger a deadly ‘second wave’ of the pandemic.
Phase one of The Great Reset.
This week, the UK Government announced its latest round of emergency measure and regional lockdowns, supposedly for fighting the coronavirus.
Their new “Tier Three” lockdown system will determine whether towns or cities will be allowed to keep pubs, gyms and other leisure facilities open, for up to a further six months. But who knows when it will end. This has prompted concerned members of public, along with a few brave officials, to ask who exactly is setting this new Three-Tier system?
According to government officials, the new system will classify regions as either ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels, with high and above triggering new local lockdowns.
Welcome to thin end of the state’s bio-surveillance wedge. Similar protocols are being rolled out in Five Eyes Alliance nations the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Just as with the global war on terror, governments have now erected an entirely new level within the ever-expanding national security state. In the UK, it’s called the Joint Bio Security Centre (JBC), formed in July, and already a £9 billion operation. Expect that number to grow substantially as the security complex discovers new and more complex systems required to keep pace with a new global bio surveillance and biological arms race.
“Led by a senior spy, the JBC does not publish details of its deliberations, the sources of its evidence or its key personnel. Nevertheless, its advice to ministers is understood to have guided recent decisions on where to enforce the local lockdowns affecting millions of people across the country,” said The Telegraph.
Is COVID really so deadly that the state needs to reconfigure all of its public health agencies under a new command and control hierarchy? Indeed, many asked the same question about al-Qaeda 20 years ago.
Unfortunately, few officials are demanding any answers or calling for accountability. There is only one such inquisitive public servant so far, Dr Greg Clark MP, Chairman of Science and Technology Committee, who believes that the British public are owed some answers as to who is in this opaque group, and which person(s) is making the final decisions for these rather arbitrary ‘alert levels’ being issued by the government.
Exactly what is the remit of this new JBC? According to the Institute for Government:
The centre will have two main jobs. The first is as an independent analytical function to provide real-time analysis about infection outbreaks. It will look in detail to identify and respond to outbreaks of Covid-19 as they arise. The centre will collect data about the prevalence of the disease and analyse that data to understand infection rates across the country.
Its second job is to advise on how the government should respond to spikes in infections – for example by closing schools or workplaces in local areas where infection levels have risen. Should UK government ministers decide to impose different restrictions in different areas and regions across England, it will be on the advice of the JBC.
And just as we suspected, here’s the salient point:
The JBC looks to be based on the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC). JTAC analyses intelligence related to terrorism and sets threat levels, which in turn inform ministers’ decisions on protecting the public and operational deployments by the police and other agencies.
The current Three-Tier alert system was based on the following framework devised for the JBC in determining new Covid-19 alert levels:
- Level 1: Covid-19 is not known to be present in the UK
- Level 2: Covid-19 is present in the UK, but the number of cases and transmission is low
- Level 3: a Covid-19 epidemic is in general circulation
- Level 4: a Covid-19 epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high or rising exponentially
- Level 5: as level 4 and there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed.
If it looks and sounds like a military operation, that’s because it is. This is the first time that the science of epidemiology has been brushed aside in favour of a one-size-fits-all, military-style approach to mitigating a viral pandemic.
The JBC insists that they are only providing recommendations “informed by the data collected and analysed by the JBC.” It is therefore up to Downing Street and its chief medical officer to issue the final alert level. Presumably they will be processing testing data, along with NHS Track and Trace, as well as data from the Office of National Statistics, and Public Health England (if it still exists).
We’re told that the JBC is being headed by an intelligence chief from GCHQ, cybersecurity director Dr Clare Gardiner. According to her biography, she’s a “qualified epidemiologist, medical researcher, and cybersecurity director.”
The Telegraph adds, “She reports to Baroness Dido Harding, the chief of NHS Test and Trace, while the entire JBC organisation falls under the control of the Department of Health, which answers to the Mr Hancock. Government sources insisted the body was largely staffed by civil servants meaning it was “not appropriate” to release their identities.”
Lockdowns are no trivial matter and deeply impact the lives of millions of people, and carry with them the most grave economic and social consequences. They also cost lives. Hence, the concern here is one of transparency, and it is unknown if this new ‘bio-intelligence’ agency will be engaging with independent scientists, or will it merely collate data and liase with government-appoint science advisors. It seems odd to be blending the civil service and signals intelligence with the science departments. From a political and bureaucratic point of view, it’s certainly convenient for politicians to have yet another compartment to whom they can ‘pass the buck’ and use plausible deniability for obfuscation purposes. If nothing else, it gives Ministers yet another panel of ‘experts’ to defer to – the familiar illusion of impressive depth and deep considerations supposedly informing the Ministers’ final assessments – when in reality, it just becomes more convoluted. Drowning in unaccountable bureaucracy. That’s where the epic mistakes are usual made.
Just as with the disastrous War on Terror, there is a serious danger that an entirely new division of security state technocracy will inevitably become a money sink, operating in its own bubble within an already knotted civil service, and propelled by endless feedback loops – creating more problems than were there to begin with.
It’s important to point out that such historic and sweeping changes in government can only be achieved amid a climate of fear. Since the beginning of this crisis, the mainstream media have been dedicated to delivering that fear. During the War on Terror, the media scooped up whatever government and the intelligence community were serving, and just ran with it. Without them, the government could never have realised any of its newfound powers. It’s the same now with COVID. You need only to replace the anti-terror mavens in intelligence community with The Science committees. This is precisely ‘the intellectual artillery’ of government joined-up with the media, which Spengler warned about almost a century ago in his treatise, The Decline of the West.
Make no mistake about it – freedom and democracy are under attack from a new and revitalised, COVID-inspired security industrial complex.
Judging by the lack of tenacity by media in being willing to hold any of the Five Eyes government to account for their horrendous performances thus far, it seems unlikely that the media will challenge this new bio-security arm that much.
One can only hope the penny drops much sooner with this leviathan, than it has with previous security state paradigm shifts.
***
Footnotes:
1 Decline of The West, Volumes I & II: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.283129/page/n471/mode/2up
***
Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.
Britain selling arms to Saudi Arabia at unprecedented rate
Activists march with replica missiles bearing the message ‘Made in Britain’ in London, UK on March 2016
MEMO | October 12, 2020
Britain is issuing arms licences to Saudi Arabia at an unprecedented rate of almost one a day, making up for months of lost time after the appeal court banned the sale of arms to the Kingdom over allegations that British made weapons are used to target civilian populations.
Official figures released last week revealed Britain’s growing role in the dangerous flow of arms across the globe. The UK is holding its position as the second highest exporter of arms, despite last year’s ruling. Now more details have been uncovered about the trade, prompting allegations of British “complicity” in the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Yemen.
“By arming the brutal Saudi dictatorship the UK is making itself complicit in the atrocities and abuses inflicted on Yemen,” said Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT). “A return to business as usual will only increase the suffering.” The war in Yemen is only possible because of military support provided by Britain and other governments, he added.
Eighty-seven export licences were granted between 20 June 2019 and last month. However, only 19 licences were issued in 11 of those months, for £15 million worth of “defensive” military equipment such as body armour and navigation systems. This means that most of the licences were issued in just 12 weeks.
Saudi Arabia tops the global table in terms of military expenditure as a proportion of GDP. The Kingdom reportedly has twice as many British-made warplanes as the Royal Air Force.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Who Runs Our World?
Netanyahu addresses US Congress
By Richard Hugus | January 4, 2019
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
- New KC-46 Supertankers Promise Israel Conventional Samson Option Strike Сapability
- No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
- Gates-Funded ‘Big Catch-Up’ Delivers 100 Million Vaccine Doses — Including High-Risk DTP Vaccine Not Used in U.S.
- No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC
- Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region
- Government Kills the Spirit
- How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again
- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- If Americans Knew
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.
- New Member of Trump’s Iran Negotiating Team Comes From Notoriously Pro-Israel Think Tank
- Israeli army demolishes Christian monastery, nuns’ school in southern Lebanon
- Tokenizing Christians In Israel
- One Gaza is not enough: Israel is turning southern Lebanon into another Gaza – Daily Update
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 