The neo-Nazi 'asylum seekers'

Interesting BBC report on the jailing of two men who are the first men in Britain to be convicted of inciting racial hatred online. I wonder if this news will unsettle prominent '7/7 Truth' 'researcher Nick 'Swimming Pools of Auschwitz' Kollerstrom, (who was one of the founders of the 'J7 Truth' campaign) - or any of the other antisemitic creeps, liars and deniers associated with the '9/11 and 7/7 'Truth' movement, recently exposed in the BB2 Conspiracy Files documentary?

'One was an unrepentant woman hater whose racist and anti-Semitic views were too hard-line even for the British National Party.

The other, his long-haired sidekick, sought the protection of a pseudonym that he used to make extremist rants.

Their hunger to stir up controversy saw them flee from justice in the north of England and stage an unlikely claim for political asylum in Los Angeles.

But their journey has now ended with jail sentences in the UK....

...'One leaflet claimed that Auschwitz had not really been the location of industrial mass murder but had been, instead, a holiday camp provided by a benevolent Nazi regime for Europe's Jewish population.

Jonathan Sandiford, prosecuting, told the jury that it held up survivors of the Holocaust to "ridicule and contempt", accusing them of lying about the genocide of six million Jews.

Another story was illustrated with photographs of dead Jews. Sheppard also wrote that Holocaust victim Anne Frank's diary was "evil".

Reviewing lawyer Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter-terrorism division, said members of the public were entitled under the law to hold racist and extreme views.

But she added: "What they are not entitled to do is to publish or distribute those opinions to the public in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner either intending to stir up racial hatred or in circumstances where it is likely racial hatred will be stirred up."

The defence argued that the online material did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law, because Sheppard's site was hosted on servers in California.

But in a landmark ruling, the judge dismissed this - potentially paving the way for further prosecutions against the owners of other hate sites who believe they are exploiting a legal loophole.

Jurors, too, rejected the defence's claim that the pair's writings were merely satirical.'

Those who use the internet to spread lies and poison and incite hatred, often under the cloak of anonymity are not as untouchable as they may think. Inciting hatred is inciting hatred, online or offline - the internet isn't some kind of parallel world and consequence-free environment - how can it be?

It's real, living, breathing people using it and communicating on it - so how is setting up hatesites any different to organising hate rallies or standing on street corners screaming abuse, or putting up flyers round the neighbourhood alleging repulsive and untruthful things about groups or individuals? The internet makes it easy to disseminate lies in seconds to a potential audience of millions - it would take a lifetime of handing out racist or hateful tracts to have a fraction of the impact. And the anonymity the internet provides can give a gloss to the bilge and bile spouted by those who if you met them ranting on a street corner would instantly elicit the response of 'uh-oh, weirdo alert.'

update: oh, and golly gosh, and Simon Shepard it turns out, is cited as a Kollerstrom source, dearie me. Meanwhile, Stormfront, the neo-Nazi message board seems to be newly bristling with '7/7 is an inside job c/o Mossad' posters, some of whom even have it as a sign off on their posts and at least one of whom is hoping (as of yesterday) that I am soon found dead in a dirty river - what they envisage for me before my death I won't repeat. Sometimes I wish I didn't check my visitor IPs and stats.

Andy Hayman's book, 7/7 conspiracy theories and the campaign for a 7/7 inquiry

On June 20th, Andy Hayman, CBE, QPM, who was in overall charge of the Counter-terrorism Command and Special Branch at the time of the London 7/7 bombings, and was the UK's National Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator, sensationally came out in favour of an independent public inquiry, in the media as he pre-promoted his new book 'The Terrorist Hunters', serialised in the Times and the subject of a Tonight With Sir Trevor McDonald ITV primetime special.

Startlingly, Mr Hayman's memoir, which is co-written by Margaret Gilmore, previously BBC Home Affairs Correspondent and now RUSI Senior Research Fellow has just been banned from UK shops, because of an injunction by the Attorney General, which nobody is allowed to talk about.

I'm very grateful to Mr Hayman for lending powerful support to the inquiry campaign, and I hope the court hearing goes well this week. The Terrrorist Hunters is an interesting book. I'm already on page 285 (cheers, Amazon). It's a disturbing and candid account of the worrying politicisation of terrorism and policing, and powerfully evokes the chaos and confusion behind the scenes as well as covering the successes and disasters facing the police and security service.

Earlier last week, on Tuesday 30th June at 9pm, the BBC broadcast a controversial one-hour investigative documentary examining the conspiracy theories that have grown up around the 7th July Bombings in the absence of an independent public inquiry into the atrocities. The programme can be seen here on i-player. I felt quite anxious about doing an interview when I was approached about this in early 2008, and talked to friends and colleagues before I agreed to get involved with the project in a personal capacity. I recorded the interview in April 2008 because I strongly believed that it would help the 7/7 public inquiry campaign. Then the programme was held back until after a terrorism trial this year.

I am relieved to say that the documentary 'The Conspiracy Files: 7/7' finally being shown has indeed helped the inquiry campaign. Martin Bright on The Spectator website was straight out of the blocks with a column on the conspiracy theories and why we need an inquiry, and the Guardian ran a similar article on its website. (The Guardian recently ran other columns on the subject of the need for a 7/7 inquiry, and was the first to cover the rise of 7/7 conspiracy theories back in June 2006.)

Then, today the Mail on Saturday, published a fairly hysterical feature on why only a major independent inquiry will stop the wild rumours, pointing out that as well as Andy Hayman, former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, and David Davis, former Tory Shadow Home Secretary - support the call for an independent investigation into the bombings. In an earlier big breakthrough for the campaign, the Daily Mail came out editorially for an independent 7/7 public inquiry in May this year. The Mirror, meanwhile first began editorially supporting a 7/7 inquiry in July 2006.

Former army officer, Patrick Mercer OBE, who is the Chair of the Home Office Sub-Committee n Counter-terrorism, has supported a full investigation into 7/7 and counter-terrorism for ages. Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz told me last summer that he favours a full investigation into the terrorism events of the terrible summer of 2005 - a position he reiterated on Newsnight only weeks ago.

To these supporters can be added long-time 7/7 inquiry supporter Nick Clegg, and the Liberal Democrat party, who support a full public inquiry, and Chris Grayling, Shadow Home Secretary, who supports an independent Judicial inquiry. Meanwhile, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, former Chair of the British Joint Intelligence Committee and Shadow Minister for Security has condemned the Intelligence and Security's Committee's 7/7 reports as 'not good enough'.

So I'm pretty pleased that the campaigning which is having such an effect. I'm also relieved that the BBC2 programme was as effective as I hoped it would be.

Why the focus on rebutting conspiracy theories? I, personally have been the both subject of conspiracy theories, and the target of conspiracy theorists, probably due to this blog, for over three years. Because of this strange experience I became interested in what these people believed, and I researched the conspiracy theories, their origins, dissemination and effects in some detail. As time has gone on I have become more and more concerned about the effects the 7/7 conspiracy theories are having; how they are no longer the preserve of eccentrics and cranks, but are spreading like a virus.

I first raised my concerns about 7/7 conspiracy theories to SO15 Counter-Terror command back in November 2006, following up on 4th December 2006. I contacted them via the secure website used by victims, drawing their attention to conspiracy sites which had sprung up on the internet and which made much of the lack of 7/7 CCTV images. I asked them if they could release more CCTV of the bombers, since the public had, to date, only seen 'one grainy image of the bombers entering Luton station'. I wrote,

'I have been contacted by dozens of people who read my blog over the last year and who say that they simply do not believe the official version of what happened on 7/7 because ''there is no proof that the bombers were in London ''The Government's official narrative giving a non-existent train that never ran as the one the bombers caught from Luton to Kings Cross made things worse and I have had even more people get in contact and say that there is some kind of cover up.

Checking out internet message boards, it seems these doubts are becoming widespread particularly amongst some young Muslims and these bizarre conspiracy theories are gaining in popularity. I think this increasing denial of the culpability of the bombers ( the attitude of 'there's no proof they were even there') is unhelpful for police/community relations and surely we need good intelligence and good relations to prevent future attacks?'

A senior SO15 officer responded with a detailed and entirely reasonable explanation of how 7/7 remained an active criminal investigation, and there was an investigation being conducted in support of the Coroner and that they would not want to do anything to compromise investigations. He explained that they had a large number of CCTV images, he wrote of the need to preserve evidential continuity of exhibits, 'sometimes even before they become significant as exhibits'. He explained that CCTV cannot be viewed in isolation,

'...many strands of investigation are brought together to get the greatest evidential value from the images. Images of people entering a station are worked in reverse to find the vehicles they arrived in, potential routes are traced and images viewed to see whether the vehicles can be seen in other places, and so on, to the start of a journey. Financial and general enquiries can give insight into ownership, or hiring. Forensic work is used to add or detract from other findings. Documentary, technical and witness accounts are also added to lead to a formidable account of events.

Release of CCTV imagery in isolation will show what police say it shows. It would have to be accompanied by explanation and a sequence of events, involving other strands of the enquiry to enable those viewing the images to recognise their significance. This explanation and corroboration could amount to much of the material to be used in the Coroner's court. This may lead to intense media speculation, and the Coroner's inquest being conducted in advance by our rightly vigilant, necessarily intrusive, but sometimes speculative media. It may also compromise the criminal investigation. We have to take immense care with this'

He also added, somewhat wryly.

'...with respect to 'conspiracy theories', if a person has the view that the enquiry is less than transparent, it could be difficult to change this view.

It is sobering to see the detailed analysis, conducted by persons with apparent authority, of the limited material released to the media.'

The CCTV images were later shown at the 2008 Theseus trial, R.vs. Ali, and again at the retrial in spring 2009, and subsequently released. Yet doubts, rumours and conspiracy theories remain and indeed are spreading; it seems once people start to believe there is a cover-up or deception, it is very hard to get them to change their mind or review any evidence which contradicts their belief that there powerful forces are conspiring to hide the truth.

One of the most disturbing parts of the BBC programme showed respected senior figure Dr Mohammed Naseem of Birmingham Central Mosque showing a newly-popular internet film called '7/7 Ripple Effect' to a room full of men and boys. The homemade film posits that the 7/7 bombs were not the work of Islamist extremists but instead placed under the trains by agents of the British and Israeli government, who then arranged for the execution of 4 Muslim men with rucksacks, who had been duped into believing themselves part of a terror training exercise. When Dr Naseem asked the who believed the film's message, over two thirds of the people in the room raised their hands. Dr Naseem had made 2000 copies of the film to be distributed by the mosque attendees afterwards .

How can you help to stop violent extremism and jihadi attacks, if you will not even accept it exists? A Channel 4 News survey in 2007 reported that nearly a quarter of Muslims in the UK did not believe the London bombers were responsible for the attacks and a similar number think the security services were involved. Given that many Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani heritage, and the Pakistani ISI has a long history of covertly supporting pro-Kashmiri liberation militant cells, and attributing terrorist bomb attacks to people other than those who detonated the explosives, this is perhaps not surprising. But we are not in Pakistan, and the UK security service is not the ISI.

Whilst our security service have in the past have compromised and tolerated radical Islamists and violent extremists residing in the UK , accepting the 'Covenant of Security', and despite being rightly under pressure for being tangled up in the abhorrent use of torture, they are, I believe, brave and dedicated to keeping the UK safe and the idea that they bombed UK citizens in a false flag act of terror is insupportable. I am not saying this because I am some kind of naive liberal: I am saying this because it is manifestly true.

Fortunately, denial of the reality of the London attacks being carried out by four young British men, radicalised like thousands of others by causes such as Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan; recruited in the UK by those on the lookout for those who simmered with a sense of resentful grievance, and takfiri religious zeal, trained in camps in the foothills of the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders, and mentored by spiritual and political emirs, frequently based outside the UK - is NOT representative of the views of most of the 2.4 million Muslims in the UK. This cannot be repeated enough. It is worth repeating stories such as how, in Luton, local Muslims recently took peaceful but determined action against a small local group of odious al Muhajiroun extremists, with three hundred marching to their preaching stall in Luton after Friday prayers and telling them to shove off.

In fact, a recent survey of UK Muslims found them to be patriotic, respectful, and extremely socially conservative. 77% said they identified 'strongly' with the UK - compared to only 50% of the general UK population.

Preying on a sense of victimhood, anger and grievance, stating that not only do all police and politicians lie but they are actively involved in nefarious plans to persecute 'people like you'. Spreading inflammatory and racist ideas in meetings, online and through passing on DVDs and tracts - that is how pretty much all extremists strive to fan hate and spread division, and some of them hope it will flare up into headline-grabbing violence.

Muslim-hating white supremacists, takfiri 'Kuf'-hating Islamists are startlingly similar in many ways. Both groups are, unsurprisingly, awash with conspiracy theorists, both contain zealots who are deeply antisemitic and racist, both contain many who take the mendacious tract 'The Protocols of the The Elders of Zion' seriously - the tract Hitler used to justify the Holocaust - and indeed, holocaust-deniers can be found in both camps. Hateful extremism can wear surprising masks, and extremists will always try to recruit the idealistic, the angry, the activists, the politically engaged and yes, the devout who are light on theological understanding of how all the world's religions deplore killing and advocate respect and love for fellow humans.

Most people do not buy into extremism, that is why it exists on the fringes. Some flirt with it, then move on. It is almost impossible to change the mind of a true bigot, zealot or hardcore conspiracy theorist. What is important is depriving them of an accepting or endorsing community who does not challenge their ideology, thus semi-legitimising it. Conspiracy theories are used to recruit, to persuade, to give cover for many different kinds of extremism. To persuade people of the righteousness of your cause you must persuade them that they are being victimised and that you are standing up for their rights. But when 'standing up for what's right' involves attacking people on the basis of their race or religion - or lack of religion - then this is dangerous and wrong.

It is far easier to gain sympathies for extremist causes when it is passed about that an all-powerful and wicked, lying government is actively oppressing white people, or Muslims, or whoever, and that innocent people are being misrepresented, abused and in the case of terrorism, set up and framed for crimes they did not commit.

I don't think many conspiracy theorists realise the damage spreading conspiracy theories does. And in many conspiracy theories, there is a small grain of truth. The government has indeed done some very bad things.

Unfair, oppressive laws, horrific and illegal practices like rendition, torture, detainment without trial, control orders, illegal wars and unpopular invasions, the cynical support of loathsome regimes with appalling human rights records, and the use of proxy groups in territorial machinations all play as mood music to extremists' propaganda, acting as a further recruiting sergeant. Wise security experts in the UK and US governments have now begun to speak out against this, but the terrible consequences of the misconceived 'war on terror' conceived by the Bush neocon idealogues continues to bear bitter fruit. And though President Obama has ordered Guantanamo and the network of 'black' prisons are to be closed, those responsible for the policies and the abuses are seeking to cover their tracks; the stink goes right to the top.

No wonder ordinary people are angry. No wonder they are suspicious. No wonder the situation is volatile. The exposure of the catastrophic greed of once-feted bankers, the public revulsion at the 'spin' and lies that led to politicised intelligence, dodgy dossiers, and flashpoints such as the hounding to death of Dr David Kelly, the horrors of war, the abuse of anti-terror laws to snoop on the innocent, the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and its aftermath, the suspicious fervour for ID cards and other wastes of public money, the public beating of protesters leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson, and finally the corrosive damage done by the Parliamentary expenses scandal has led to a deep mistrust and resentment of those in power. In such environments, conspiracy theories find fertile ground.

There is finally to be a public inquiry into the Iraq war, despite the efforts of Tony Blair to have it in secret, and it is only right that there should be an independent inquiry into the London bombings of 7/7, as well as a Select Committee report into counter-terrorism, terrorism and radicalisation in the UK - including links with activity abroad.

If the public and government no longer trust each other, then we are in real trouble.

I hope it's even more clear that the campaign for a public inquiry is nothing to do with the 'Government did it' conspiracy theories. I hope police and politicians note that in the absence of public information, and in an atmosphere of growing mistrust, people will start to fill in the gaps. What starts as speculation can become a damaging rumour that hardens into tolerance of hateful extremism. If you truly believe that the government has such contempt for voters that it will murder its own citizens, if you tie that into a narrative of a racist war waged on people like you, then where do you go with that belief? What do you do next? What does it make you become?

There are people who say that conspiracy theories are foolish but harmless, there are people who passionately want to believe them, but protest that they are not racists, extremists antisemites or bigots, only asking reasonable questions. There are people who say that giving the conspiracy theorists attention is counter-productive. There are people who will say that there is no point having an inquiry into 7/7 or the Iraq war, it will be a whitewash, or a waste of money, or both; some will say that there is no point listening to politicians, or police, or anyone in power - no point asking questions, no point listening to answers. They say you hear only excuses and lies.

Well. In the end you can only do what you believe to be right. I think that having inquiries into Iraq and 7/7 is both necessary and overdue. I believe there needs to be greater accountability, scrutiny and transparency, combined with a cool-headed investigation into the roots of terrorism. I say that party politics and personal ambition should stay as far away from counter-terrorism policy-making and operational decision-making as possible. I know that the effects of a breakdown of trust between people and power are dangerous and divisive. I want liberty to be protected, and the rule of law respected and Parliament reformed, and real truth, not 'truther' speculation fostered, whilst lies and propaganda are challenged and debunked.

And if people care about these things, and speak about them, then I believe we are better off than if we just give up and embrace resentment and cynicism.

I hope so, anyway. I always hope.

UPDATE: Thirty two people are being questioned after a network of suspected extremists with access to 300 weapons and 80 bombs has been uncovered by counter-terrorism police, in England's largest seizure of a suspected terrorist arsenal, reports the Sunday Times today. Rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and dozens of firearms have been recovered in raids on over 20 properties. Police are investigating links to arrests in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. Recently two men were charged with offences against the Terrorism Act following the discovery of an alleged plot involving ricin. They were linked with the thuggish, barking, deeply unpopular and pitifully small extreme-right white-supremacist organisations, Aryan Strike Force (ASF) and Racial Volunteer Force ( RVF). I'm not putting up links here, but a quick browse of their internet activity will find paranoid militant extremist ideology, lashings of Islamophobia, homophobia and antisemitism - and oh yes - extreme conspiracy theorising galore. *Sigh*

The police are investigating whether this latest lot of arrested suspects were planning a bombing campaign against mosques. Would this disturbing story have had more coverage if the alleged arms-stashing haters were extremist al Muhajiroun types instead of white supremacists?

Possibly. Probably, in fact. Yet it's all equally odious. It would be good if it was generally accepted that extremists like Anjem Choudary are no more representative of all Muslims than extremist like Nick Griffin are representative of all white people. It would be good if far-right terror plots and criminal extremists were routinely given the same sort of coverage as Islamist terror plots and criminal extremists.

It would also be good if the startling similarities between the ideologies of both were pointed out, too. Oh well, I'll keep mentioning it.

7/7 Conspiracy Theories: the TRUTH at last

UPDATE NOTE: the collection of conspiracy theories below is SATIRE. It has been posted because after three years of seeing utter rubbish disseminated on the internet through blogs, forums, home-made 'truth documentaries' and 'truth research', which are nothing more than paranoid speculation, I believe it is time to show this stuff up for what it really is. The sane, clear-eyed calls for a 7/7 inquiry are nothing to do with conspiracy theories that are posted and repeated endlessly on the internet, and passed around by people who have apparently little grasp of Occam's razor or logic or evidence-based research.

I have noticed that it is a frequent conspiracy theorist tactic to focus obsessively on any small anomaly - normal in archived coverage of rolling, multi-sourced news coverage of a major event under massive investigation, and to relentlessly ask endless questions, which seek to raise doubt on the 'official account'. Very rarely will the practised conspiracy theorist attempt to come up with a counter-narrative of their own; instead, the onus is always on 'The Powers that be' to disprove negatives, and respond to every rumour and question, no matter how evidence-free its orgin. This account represents a round-up of the main 7/7 consipracy theories and attempts to refute them, using logic, evidence and satire. If you are likely to be offended by the lies that are circulated about the 7th July murders - and many are - please don't read on. To those who have expressed interest in the 7/7 conspiracy theories without considering carefully their provenance, origin, agenda and basis in fact, I hope this makes you think twice before passing them on.

You may also want to look at this: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.

SATIRE ALERT: This is a guest post from
Connor Spiracy and Thea Wrist

''After three years of 7/7 research on the internet, I can reveal the TRUTH, and I would like to share it with you all now. Everything in the following is taken from a real internet 7/7 research source available only on the internet. Placed together, I'm sure you will see what a compelling case it all makes - much more convincing than the official version. Hold tight - this will change your world...

A few years ago, wicked people agreed upon an evil scheme. In order to bolster their nefarious plans for

(a) introducing ID cards (b) endless war for oil (c) endless war against Islam

a dreadful 'false flag' plot was hatched by

(a) the UK government (b) a shadowy Bilderberg hyper-capitalist neocon cabal (c) the CIA (d)M15/6 (e) Israel (f) Jews, somewhere, (g) possibly an elite part-reptilian super-race.

They decided to attack London on 7th July and blame it on Islamist terrorist suicide bombers. (There are no such things as Islamist terrorist suicide bombers, especially not UK ones, who have wives and children and look normal.) The terrible plot went like this:

M15 placed bombs under the trains, which had been timed to explode. They worked with Israel to do this, Mossad probably, and maybe the CIA as well. The Israeli PM, who was staying near Russell Square, knew in advance and was warned, even though what actually happened was that after the Russell Square bomb went off, he was warned to stay in his room with his security detail, so missing the fourth bomb in Tavistock Square round the corner less than an hour later. A huge world-leading Israeli-owned security and surveillance company won the contract to put in enhanced security systems on the London Underground in September 2004, ten months before the bombings, so that proves everything. Oh, and a passenger who was in the same carriage as the bomb at Edgware, who remained with a dying woman then staggered out in shock said he 'couldn't remember' seeing where a bomb or a bag was. Which also proves it. Kind of.

But if you want a final piece of proof, one survivor also mentioned to a journalist outside the station shortly after fleeing the train, that they had seen tiles on the floor of the carriage fly up. This was because of the bomb which had been placed in a rucksack on the floor of the carriage in front. Erm, but it could also indicate a bomb under the carriage, although photographs of the train interior indicate the bomb was inside. As does eye-witness evidence from survivors who were in the carriage with the bomber. Including a man who stood opposite him and survived with terrrible injuries.

The bombers were innocent; they were however standing in the carriages and killed by the bombs in their rucksacks that they were carrying. But that wasn't their fault, because they were innocent 'patsies' who thought they were smuggling drugs or taking part in a mysterious terror training exercise. That was why they'd bought return tickets, even though a cheap day return is cheaper than a single. They'd even made videos describing why they considered themselves soldiers in a war against the UK. And been to terror training camps abroad and everything. They took their acting role very seriously indeed. But they were completely innocent, remember.

The person co-ordinating the mysterious terror exercise was Peter Power, an ex-Scotland Yard officer, who like many other former cops had set up his own company. His company specialises in training management to be crisis-prepared. So on July 7th, in a shocking and unimaginable coincidence, he was sitting in an office teaching some managers, in a publishing company that employed about a thousand people, how to plan for disasters, like he did every day.

At 9am, the start of the working day, he was asking the managers to consider what would happen if major tube stations were attacked at rush hour. I know. Amazing and frankly not believable - even though there had been a rush hour Al Qaeda attack on Madrid commuters, and a London tube attack was widely considered to be a likely terror target. As part of his training material, he used recordings of a Panorama programme simulating a terror attack on London. He'd been on the programme - God knows why the BBC would ask a respected security and risk expert onto a programme about terrorism and the risk to security, but there you go.

When the real attacks happened in London, where he was working that day along with hundreds of thousands of other people, he was shocked - but used the opportunity to mention the prescience of his security firm. A most untypical reaction of a self-employed risk consultant with an opportunity to talk about his company on national news, I'm sure you'll agree.

The poor not-bombers were killed, along with passengers on the tube trains. But one bomber remained alive. When he realised he was a dupe, he fled to Canary Wharf, where he knew there were lots of journalists in media organisations who would help him. That's what anyone would do in such a situation - hurry across the city to Canary Wharf.

When the young non-bomber arrived at Canary Wharf, he was promptlyshot in broad daylight by black-clad gunmen, in the full view of lots of towering office blocks full of journalists and business people. A much smarter idea than taking him into a van and bumping him off, eh?

His remains were then chopped up, taken back to the exploded bus and carefully scattered about to fool everyone.

The bus wasn't really exploded at all, however. It was full of actors and stuntmen, and used clever pyrotechnics to look like it was exploded. It was all part of Peter Power's mysterious terror drill.

But Peter Power didn't know the real reason why he had been asked to run a complicated terror drill complete with fake exploding bus for the benefit of a few managers in a publishing company who never left their office and were doing a planning exercise on powerpoint with videos in a different part of London.

The wicked plotters behind it all were using Power as a dupe, to add weight to their plot to blow up three trains and blame it all on Muslims. They were so evil that they actually wanted to be found out and send a coded message of their mocking disdain by doing the high-risk strategy of the shooting and faked bus explosion as well; to add insult to this they then cynically arranged for a red London bus with a lift-off roof full of dancers to appear at the Olympic handover to London ceremony.

Thousands of passers-by, police, emergency services workers have all kept quiet about all this, aided by a complicit media. M15 and their masters ruthlessly suppress the truth by allowing bloggers and internet truth campaigners to write about this and distribute DVDs and hold meetings about it regularly.

I realise when I write all this down it looks very silly, and that there is not a single shred of credible evidence to support any of it - which is why it is always better not to explain this is what happened, and instead just ask lots of questions and look at isolated details out of context whilst ignoring anything that contradicts the theory. But now you know that the official account is all lies and the ultimate proof is of course, that 9/11 Was An Inside Job.''

Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Because otherwise, you'd cry. Enough of this insulting, illogical, lazy, deceitful paranoid conspiracy crap flying round the internet, let's have an inquiry - to put this trust-corroding, intelligence-damaging nonsense to bed as much as to get at the truth.

'Considerable damage to national security'

It is getting kind of tiresome now, how frequently it seems to happen. Something embarrassing happens to a senior person in government and all of a sudden it's OMG! QUICK! LOOK OVER THERE! A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY! 1111!!!

The latest headlines concern the scathing parliamentary report in which it is stated that the threat to national security had been grossly exaggerated just before the Crown Prosecution service was due to announce whether MP Damien Green would be charged or not. The report states that claims in a letter to the Met from Chris Wright, (Cabinet Office director of security and intelligence), that the leaks had caused 'considerable damage to national security' were 'hyperbolic'. And 'unhelpful'. And gave 'an exaggerated impression of the damage done' by the leaks. 'Frustration' in the Home Office and the Cabinet was, the report suggested, the probable cause of the exaggerated claims.

Yeah, I bet they were frustrated.

Could any examples of actual damage to national security be found? Nope. But the leaks were damaging to the Home Secretary and that must have been very upsetting indeed. What can be done? Arrest someone! That's the spirit!

Now it's all collapsed into a great flapping heap of humiliation, desperate fingers are pointing blame at Bob Quick, who resigned last week. No word from the Home Office, who are possibly looking for a passing bus to throw certain people under. But 'Scotland Yard sources' are today quoted in the Standard saying 'the only senior officer keen on an arrest was Mr Quick, who quit last week when he compromised top-secret terror raids'.

That'll be the The Top Secret Terror Raids conducted in the full glare of publicity that managed to conveniently push the embarrassing stories of the Home Secretary's expenses claims - for bathplugs and adult movie rentals and a kitchen sink - off the front pages for a day, remember.

Terrorists! Easter spectaculars! Pictures of places in Manchester! Pakistanis!

Except, unfortunately, no actual evidence of bomb-making equipment has yet been found, and now a diplomatic row has broken out with Pakistan. Pakistan has been lectured on 'doing more' to fight terrorism by the British - but Pakistan has not been given 'basic information' about the Pakistani citizens who have been nicked. Way to go, international co-operation between staunch allies in the War on Terror! Communication and intelligence-sharing is key, right?

Right?

The threat from a plot may yet turn out to be real. Worse, the investigation may turn out to have been fatally damaged by too-early arrests. Or they may be no plot at all. Who knows how parlous the state of national security is today, compared to a week ago?


Here's the thing. National security is a grave and serious concern, and those tasked with protecting it bear heavy responsibilities and should receive our dutiful support whenever it is asked for. To see the sacred and honourable business of protecting and preserving the life and liberty of the realm bastardised and cheapened so, made into a tawdry stunt, a distracting sleight of hand, to see the horrors of terrorism invoked and waved about as a tattered figleaf to cover up someone's embarrassment, for God's sake - is sick-making.

And they've done it too often now. They're always bloody doing it, this lot in power, and then the headlines fade and the news machine trundles on, and then sometimes, three months later, if you're lucky, a paragraph on page 27 states that so-and-so was released without charge, or bundled off to be deported, or whatever, and the headline-grabbing plot, the threat, the suspect and the suspicions that were made so much of at the time came to nothing after all. More than half of those arrested under suspicion of terrorism offences are released without charge.

And yet there is a threat; a threat made worse half the time by the frequently heavy-handed and misguided policies of this government at home and abroad. There are people who want to hurt us - there always have been and there always will be - and those brave and dedicated men and women in the police and security service who are sworn to the task of thwarting their plans are best served by being allowed to get on with their jobs and not being dragged into political gambits to prop up other people's sodding careers.

Communication between agencies. Intelligence-sharing. The grindingly boring business of slow, careful detective work. This is what keeps us safe, not media showboating, not civil-liberty-shredding, not ratcheting up the all-channel terror until millions of people become ill with worry and sick with anxiety. When we allow our logical thinking to be bitch-slapped by paralysing fear, and we indulge the attention-seeking posturings of the powerful who should know better, who should respect us more than to try to play us like cheap fiddles, then we do ourselves no favours, and we make things much, much worse than they need be. It blows back and bites us in the face, this bad business. Terrorism terrorises. So does reading about it all the time.

'Considerable damage to our national security?'
Yes, I should say there has been over the last few years.
And the stink, as they say, comes from the head.

Sheesh. It's always worth remembering, however grand you are, the following piece of wisdom:

And so, take it away, the original and best poster of all time, that has suddenly become wildly popular a half century on, expressing as it does the epitome of Britishness in its dignified humanity. Reminding us of a time when nobody sat about worrying about such things, because there were more important things to concern people, like whether the house would be flattened by a bomb overnight and whether loved ones would come home alive, as a result of a raging world wide war.

With thanks to some now-rather-old -hat popular internet memes
for providing the illustrations to today's irritated rant.

Good night and good luck.

Guest conspiracy theory of the month, Admiral Mullen's busy diary and whither the 'October Surprise'?

And that's my longest blog post header ever. Pre-election jitters, October surprises, it's speculation time so here is my guest conspiracy theory, the third in an occasional series. Props to me if I'm right but I'd much, much rather not be.

I note that, over the weekend, Admiral Mike Mullen - Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff - had a secretive meeting in Lake Placid with Europe's military top brass. Attendees were: Sir Graham Stirrup of Britain’s Royal Air Force, German Army Gen. Wolfgang Schneiderhan, French Army Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin and Italian Air Force Gen. Vincenzo Camporini.

I can find only 2 media mentions of this, both in very obscure publications. The Plattsburgh Press Republican writes' The day after the planes had left, Capt. John Kirby, a special assistant to Mullen, confirmed that the top military leaders from five countries met in Lake Placid to discuss mutual security issues, including Afghanistan.
“I’m not at liberty to go into the details that was discussed, but they went through a wide range of security issues that are common to all five nations,” Kirby said.
“They discussed, in broad terms, progress in Afghanistan and where we’re heading with regard to Afghanistan, particularly the NATO mission there. And they discussed other mutual issues of security concerns.”

On Monday 20th October, Admiral Mullen met Serbian president Boris Tadic, and the Serbian Chief of Defence in Belgrade, and discussed ways the two countries' militaries could work together, two weeks after the US Defence Secretary had flown to Kosovo to voice US support for its territorial integrity. Which is pretty extraordinary.

On Tuesday 21st October, Admiral Mullen met with his Russian counterpart, at the Russians' request, apparently, in Helsinki. The first meeting since Russia invaded Georgia. This has been much more widely reported. NYT writes 'The admiral said he and General Makarov had discussed American disquiet over the war in Georgia — Russia’s first post-Soviet offensive outside its soil — as well as Russian unhappiness with the arrival of American warships in the Black Sea with humanitarian aid for Georgia. Other topics included NATO’s relations with Russia and how to improve cooperation on countering terrorism, halting the proliferation of unconventional weapons and stemming narcotics trafficking'.

Also on Tuesday, Mullen was in Riga, Latvia warning Iraq that 'time was running out' for Iraq to approve a bilateral agreement with the US to extend US military operations after December 31st, the expiration date of the UN Security Council agreement for the US military to be in Iraq. Mullen also made some strongly-worded references to Iran 'meddling'.

Ho hum. Busy, busy, busy.

Now for all I know, Admiral Mullen has these sorts of high-level, high-security international top brass meetings all the time, and his recent round of meetings in such quick succession is nothing special. I am merely flagging this up because I think it is interesting timing, less than 2 weeks before an election and with no 'October Surprise' having *cough* hoved into the erm, airspace yet.

It is no secret that the imploding economy is proving catastrophic for the Republicans' election campaign, and they are desperate to change the channel to foreign policy/war on terror stuff where they percieve their Presidential candidate to have an advantage.

So if an international incident suddenly pops up... an 'October surprise' which proves an election game-changer...it is worth remembering Admiral Mullen's busy 4 days meeting key defence chiefs from Europe, Russia and the Balkans from 18th- 22nd October.

Random speculation time: Barry Cooper, a Professor of political science, writes about a possible Russian October surprise in the Calgary Herald. Russia stirring up trouble in America's back yard? Cooking up a storm in Nicaragua, Cuba, or Venuzuela, retaliation for NATO's approaches up to its borders? So I say, hmmm, what about Venuzuela's planned naval base in the Caribbean, from whence their Russian friends can gaze beadily at the US? Ostensibly the base is to help fight narcotics trafficking. Narcotics trafficking being something Mullen and the Russians discussed on Tuesday, as you'll recall.

A spot of arms-dealing, some circling warships...a Cuban Missile Crisis part 2? A civilian airliner or military aircraft shot down by rocket launchers? God knows, and we certainly could drive ourselves all wild by guessing.

Joe Biden certainly seems to think something is afoot, in the next six months, mentioning Russia and the Middle East, telling people to 'gird their loins' and making Kennedy comparisons. Biden said, somewhat unguardedly, at a fund raiser

'It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

War is of course what saved the US economy in the early days of Bush's administration, following the Enron scandal. I really hope they don't intend a war with Iran. We've had enough energy-related military interventions for a while, don't you think?

That last sentence of Biden's, by the way, was really asking for it. Conspiracy theorists will have an absolute field day when whatever it is happens, saying it was 'generated'. And something will happen, because it always does - that's the nature of international politics, and testing times during new administrations.

Just look at what's going on in Pakistan under its new cash-strapped government, as the country faces economic collapse and the loss of its western regions to militant extremists, criminals and tribal warlords. It's close to chaos, and America roaming about in the militant strongholds and tribal badlands bombing villages, ostensibly in search of Bin Laden, isn't helping. It's also making a vengeful terrorist strike on UK or US soil more likely as well. As the Americans (and everyone else) damn well knows.

You have to wonder if they'd be that cynical as to practically provoke one for election-winning reasons...but....no, I'm not going there. Pakistan, meanwhile is awash with conspiracy theories of its own.

I'm not surprised, they bloom like mould during tense times like these. They don't help, they just make people freaked out and fearful, and that is why I don't give them airtime very often. I have a temperature and am feeling pretty ill today, which probably explains why I've started rummaging through international geo-economic-politics and spooking myself out.

Re-reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which isn't very soothing either. It remains essential reading though, now more than ever.

Thank God there's less than 2 weeks til the US elections, though I suppose all the legal wrangling will delay the result, unless there's a landslide. These bastards really, really don't want their party to end, nor judgment day to ever come.