In the last decade, now 7/7 has dropped out of this statistic, only one person has been killed in the UK by an Islamic terrorist attack. Let me repeat that. In the last decade, one person has been killed in the UK by an Islamic terrorist attack. That unfortunate death was Lee Rigby.
Rigby’s tragic murder illustrated how easy it is for terrorists to commit an outrage. Two very disorganised Nigerian nutters murdered him with knives. Unfortunately, if a couple of nutters decide to go at someone on the street, they have a high chance of success.
Which is why you would have to be a lunatic actually to believe MI5’s repeated claims during the last decade that there are thousands of dedicated terrorists out there, fanatical determined and organised, but in a decade of constant effort they have succeeded in killing nobody else. There were, MI5 claim, six actual terrorist plots this year but fortunately MI5 saved all of us.
If you believe MI5’s stories, there are two possibilities. The first is that we have security services of a quite incredible efficiency, able to foil random terrorism, generally regarded as near impossible. The second is that we have thousands of dedicated terrorists of such incredible ineptitude that they can’t manage to kill anybody, even when they could choose any random undefended target in the entire UK and any method from knives to poison to hit and run to shooting to bombs, and don’t mind losing their own lives in the attempt. We have rubbish terrorists.
There is of course a third possibility – that these thousands of dedicated terrorists and these scores of foiled plots in the last decade were inventions, or at least the grossest exaggerations, by the security services. A number of fantasists have indeed been convicted and jailed. But the only, single, potential attacker in recent years who actually possessed a viable bomb was a British army soldier with a hatred of Muslims. And naturally he was not counted as nor convicted as a terrorist. Terrorists are Muslims.
The famous “liquid bomb plot”, in which it eventually transpired, unreported by mainstream media, that there were in fact no bombs and no plane tickets and the suspicious chemical found in baby bottles was Milton sterilising solution for baby bottles, is perhaps the best example.
But of course, lots of people are convicted of terrorism. Indeed law after law has stretched the definition of terrorism so far that I am almost certainly guilty of it just by publishing this blogpost. Meanwhile the Government is concentrating on bullying universities and students to ban speakers who say exactly the kind of thing I am writing here, speakers who protest against the detention and harassment of Muslims, and the continued policy of bombing Muslim countries and killing civilians.
Because there is almost no Islamic terrorism in the UK. It is virtually non-existent. It is not the true reason the corporate state wants ever more surveillance power, ever more restriction on freedom of speech and even, in universities, freedom of thought. Do not be fooled. Fight back.
Paul Finnegan
20/09/2015 12:36am
Er, this website is obviously a spoof. It’s hard to tell whether you understand that or not from your posting, but if you do not then you must have serious comprehension problems.
Here is the first article on this website. It’s pretty long, so I am going to truncate it to show people exactly how much the website is worth.
“Eve Martin told me the tsunami that caused the nuclear reactor problem in Fukushima, Japan, was accidentally caused by one of her uncles in a failed extortion attempt. Apparently, he was only trying to demonstrate a small earthquake as evidence he could do it in order to extort money from the Japanese government, but the equipment he used unintentionally triggered an underwater earthquake off-shore, much stronger than he had expected and in a different location than he had planned, and that caused the tsunami which damaged the reactor.
Eve did not know details of the equipment, but from what she did know, I suspect it was a mechanical oscillator something like the so-called “earthquake machine” invented in the late 19th century by Nikola Tesla. That device was a sort of vibrator that allegedly could vibrate at the “resonance frequency” of the bedrock it was attached to and make it vibrate enough that in a fault zone where some underlying instability already existed, underground rock strata would slip and start an earhquake.
Several attempts have been made to test out this method of creating earthquakes, and so far as has been made public, they have all failed. Of course, if someone had succeeded, they would probably be smart enough to keep quiet and not say anything for fear of being held liable for earthquake damages. But on close examination of the reports that have been made public, none of these failed attempts has taken into account the pre-existing conditions underground.”
Etc, etc. Please will you go and post your nonsense somewhere else – this is a place for serious postings.
Many thanks,
John
Info
Just to follow up.
The General Register Office’s online service does not exist to confirm whether someone existed or not; it is there to process applications for copies of birth certificates.
As I explained recently, the online application form for a birth certificate contains a number of questions which need to be answered. These questions concern both the person in respect of whom the copy of the birth certificate is being applied for and the applicant.
If any of the details requested is not supplied then the online process cannot be completed.
This is why it is incumbent on whoever makes the application to provide those details.
And why it is incumbent on you – as the poster on here – to find out and tell us, the readers, which details were supplied (or not supplied, if you prefer) in furtherance of the application.
Failure to do so would suggest to me tat you need to change your moniker from “Info” to “Disinfo”.
Thank you and kind regards,
Habbabkuk
John Spencer-Davis
“Paul Finnegan
20/09/2015 12:36am
Er, this website is obviously a spoof. It’s hard to tell whether you understand that or not from your posting, but if you do not then you must have serious comprehension problems.”
_________________
I should say that “Paul Finnegan” has taken the website seriously but that his problem is not one of comprehension but rather that he is a seriously-disturbed nutter.
That’s the wonderful thing about serious blogs like this one – for every nutter that drops out (yes, it had happened!), another one pops up.
It is but a variant on the “there’s one born…”
Oh well Info – rather than lifting from Spivey’s rubbish perhaps you should go back to the GRO with the reference I provided and your £9.25 to see whether the entry in the index has just been made up.
Perhaps – Spivey didn’t ask properly, perhaps the GRO quite sensibly didn’t want to provide him with the certificate or perhaps the admin person just wasn’t very good. Anyway until you have tried rather than quoting from a known criminal perhaps you might just stop posting yopur offensive garbage.
Resident Dissident
20/09/2015 8:54am
I don’t know enough about the case to say if this is identical with Lee Rigby or not, but I will accept that you are right in your researches. (Incidentally, I am curious about the date of registration: does the website not give the day of the month, or did you miss it off by mistake?)
It shows how important it is to repeat other people’s work oneself, instead of repeating their assertions. A valuable lesson.
You know what Spivey et al would say, faced with this, of course? Spivey would say that MI5 have bribed the General Registrar’s Office, or have got into the records and altered them. Shown the original birth certificate, Spivey would assert that it was a forgery concocted by MI5. Confronted with friends from McClure’s childhood, he would say they were stooges. And on, and on, and on.
It’s not worth arguing with an attitude like that.
Kind regards,
John
Incidentally, I am curious about the date of registration: does the website not give the day of the month, or did you miss it off by mistake?
No – The GRO registers for births are kept by quarters – July is for the 3rd quarter July to Sept. If anyone doesn’t believe me they can go and do a search on Ancestry.co.uk for themselves.
Of course I know the conspiracists are not above bending evidence to suit their version of the facts – we regularly see the same behaviour here, it starts with the floating of the theory based on existing prejudices first, often within hours of the event, there then comes the distortion and selective treatment of strands of evidence and then the theory is stated as an irrefutable fact.
Resident Dissident
20/09/2015 8:54am
One further comment. The General Registrar’s Office is presumably staffed with human beings who have normal feelings.
To give my own personal experience for a moment: I recently made an application to the Office of the Public Guardian for details of Lord Janner’s lasting powers of attorney, if any. The guideline response time is about four weeks.
It took me three months and repeated calls and e-mails to produce the records, by which time the information was in the newspapers already. I have no doubt that the delay was because the case was so sensitive and the staff of the OPG had no idea who I was or why I wanted this information. Strictly speaking, they could be blamed for that, but I recognise the difficulties they were under.
Even if someone like Spivey made an application for a birth certificate and got all the details absolutely correct, I can see people at the General Registrar’s Office saying “no fucking way are we giving this guy this information. If we get pulled up for it, we can always blame administrative error.” I regard that as quite a plausible scenario.
Kind regards.
John
“Even if someone like Spivey made an application for a birth certificate and got all the details absolutely correct, I can see people at the General Registrar’s Office saying “no fucking way are we giving this guy this information. If we get pulled up for it, we can always blame administrative error.” I regard that as quite a plausible scenario.”
Not only plausible, but very sensible given Spivey’s history.
Very sensible posts from ResDiss and JSD.
“Disinfo” thoroughly routed and a good thing too.
Habbabkuk: And why it is incumbent on you – as the poster on here – to find out and tell us, the readers, which details were supplied (or not supplied, if you prefer) in furtherance of the application.
Kindly read the link I supplied.
I didn’t make the application, I was simply giving the info that an application had apparently been made with no result.
“Republicofscotland, 5:52 pm; there’s really no point in insulting me, unless you’d like me to think you’re a troll. Link to (or preferably summarise, since Spivey’s so long-winded and coarse) the argument that you find most convincing and (eventually) I’ll tell you what I think of it.”
______________________
Dear oh dear oh dear, Clarke, I thought you of all people would recognise sarcasm when you saw it, afterall as you stated, “you are openminded but not so openminded that your brain falls out.”
You even joked about it with Habb, sarcasm me thinks, so I’m rather disappointed in your rather weak attempt to imply that my last retort in your opinion is an insult.
“Clark, it appears that in failing to be in awe of the Great Spivey with his word-of-god truth-telling, we’ve fallen out of favour with RoS. After all, if we’re stupid enough to believe a run-away dustcart is simply a tragic accident, and not a diabolical false-flag operation, then we’re closed-minded fools.”
_________________________
This from Glenn who claims he’s pretty sure so and so (forgotten name) is a CIA asset…..any others you care to add to the list Glenn?
What about MI5 assets? Mighten you divulge those as well….I’m sure we’d all be very intrested to know…thanks.
Peter Cramshell 9.25am
Exceptionally aware comment Peter, keep the good work up.
RoS: “This from Glenn who claims he’s pretty sure so and so (forgotten name) is a CIA asset…..any others you care to add to the list Glenn?”
You’ve fastened onto a non-issue, RoS. It’s not a “gotcha” (as you appear to think). You’ve also fastened onto Spivey’s coat-tails, which reduces your credibility vastly more than appear to realise.
[ Mod: Caught in spam queue ]
——
Be careful what you believe.
I will repeat there was something very odd about the news coverage of Lee Rigby’s death, the blood on hands / not on hands has not been explained convincingly. But assuming it was a genuine tragic incident ISIS/ISIL/AlQaida are not to blame, if anyone is to blame it is the NHS but the “conspiracy theories” have helped muddy the waters and Mi5 are quite happy with that.
Whilst the concerned public were encouraged to see what was happening in the right hand they completely missed the conjuring trick being performed by the left.
The same is true with the Kelly “conspiracy theory”; someone on here has been asking about which US journalist Kelly callled from a ‘phone box in the village he lived on the day he went missing. I hadn’t heard that one to tell you the truth, I heard that a call had been made from the call box to a UK newspaper but the caller or nature of the call had not been identified.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this information is, I do know it is not relevant to understanding what actually happened to Kelly.
Even the email allegedly sent by Kelly the day he went missing to US journalist Miller is suspect but useful for putting Kelly in his home that day.
Apart from the neighbour who claimed to have met Kelly on a walk that day the only witness that puts Kelly at home that day is his wife who has previously lied about his movements to the Hutton inquiry. Someone from the MoD claims to have spoken to Kelly on the phone but could not be certain he was at home. It has been reported the neighbour who claims to have spoke to Kelly was suffering from dementia.
The emails sent from Kellys home that day are most likely not sent by Kelly. One email sent to the same MoD colleague who claims to have spoken to him was a list of journalists names copied from Kelly’s notebook. One name on the list is Susan Wells, the name in Kelly’s notebook certainly looks like “Susan Wells” but because of Kelly’s poor hand writing it is a misrepresentation of Susan Watts.
Kelly was well aware of Watts name and would not have copied it incorrectly. Kelly wrote to his bosses about his contact with Watts before the fuss kicked off, her name and a transcript of what Kelly had said to her was leaked to the FCA committee who grilled Kelly by Gilligan who had already set Kelly up once and was doing so again by suggesting questions the committee could ask about Watts.
The only person connected with the whole affair who apparently had not heard about Watts is the person who typed the list of names and sent it to the MoD. The email was sent at 10.22
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0079.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0080to0082.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/mod/mod_20_0012to0013.pdf
Note the time stamp of 9.22 on the MoD receiving machine. The most likely explanation is one of the machines had not had day light time settings adjusted, the importance of this is that it puts in doubt the time a bunch of emails were sent later in the morning (11.18 on Kelly’s machine) including the email to Miller.
Miller is the one Kelly spoke to immediately he returned from inspecting the “mobile weapon labs” that Bush had gone on the telly and said this was proof positive of WMD. Kelly told Miller that Bush was talking bollocks, Miller printed the story, Kelly died.
Or did he? The formal identification of the body was performed by the family after Kelly’s eyeballs had been drained of fluid, his brain removed and his face and neck tissues dissected to bone. All is not lost though he could still been identified by his dental records except they had been tampered with.
But all this is not relevant to the fact the police lied, Hutton lied, the pathologists misled the public record and the Coroner abandoned his duty.
Mi5 were quite happy for the inconsistencies to be ever regurgitated, the press happy to oblige whist all the while the architects of the conspiracy are laughing at the stupid public.
The fact is Mi5 are making mugs of all of us.
ps the name of the journalist missing from the list of names is most interesting
“You’ve fastened onto a non-issue, RoS. It’s not a “gotcha” (as you appear to think). You’ve also fastened onto Spivey’s coat-tails, which reduces your credibility vastly more than appear to realise.”
____________________________
None issue Glenn, I like the way, it becomes a “non issue” when it’s about you and your CIA assets, but when talk turns other matter regarding Spivey it becomes a credibility issue.
I hardly think I need to worry about credibility, coming from you Glenn, and your CIA assets comment.
Of course you give your position away with “the gotcha” claim, you may be trying to “get” other commentors, I however don’t see it that way.
[ Mod: Caught in spam queue ]
——
Just sent post that I thought might help clear a few things up but it didn’t appear. Is there a size limit to a post?
I appear to be blocked
Maybe not, will try again
Be careful what you believe.
I will repeat there was something very odd about the news coverage of Lee Rigby’s death, the blood on hands / not on hands has not been explained convincingly. But assuming it was a genuine tragic incident ISIS/ISIL/AlQaida are not to blame, if anyone is to blame it is the NHS but the “conspiracy theories” have helped muddy the waters and Mi5 are quite happy with that.
Whilst the concerned public were encouraged to see what was happening in the right hand they completely missed the conjuring trick being performed by the left.
The same is true with the Kelly “conspiracy theory”; someone on here has been asking about which US journalist Kelly callled from a ‘phone box in the village he lived on the day he went missing. I hadn’t heard that one to tell you the truth, I heard that a call had been made from the call box to a UK newspaper but the caller or nature of the call had not been identified.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this information is, I do know it is not relevant to understanding what actually happened to Kelly.
Even the email allegedly sent by Kelly the day he went missing to US journalist Miller is suspect but useful for putting Kelly in his home that day.
Apart from the neighbour who claimed to have met Kelly on a walk that day the only witness that puts Kelly at home that day is his wife who has previously lied about his movements to the Hutton inquiry. Someone from the MoD claims to have spoken to Kelly on the phone but could not be certain he was at home. It has been reported the neighbour who claims to have spoke to Kelly was suffering from dementia.
The emails sent from Kellys home that day are most likely not sent by Kelly. One email sent to the same MoD colleague who claims to have spoken to him was a list of journalists names copied from Kelly’s notebook. One name on the list is Susan Wells, the name in Kelly’s notebook certainly looks like “Susan Wells” but because of Kelly’s poor hand writing it is a misrepresentation of Susan Watts.
Kelly was well aware of Watts name and would not have copied it incorrectly. Kelly wrote to his bosses about his contact with Watts before the fuss kicked off, her name and a transcript of what Kelly had said to her was leaked to the FCA committee who grilled Kelly by Gilligan who had already set Kelly up once and was doing so again by suggesting questions the committee could ask about Watts.
The only person connected with the whole affair who apparently had not heard about Watts is the person who typed the list of names and sent it to the MoD. The email was sent at 10.22
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0079.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0080to0082.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221546/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/mod/mod_20_0012to0013.pdf
Note the time stamp of 9.22 on the MoD receiving machine. The most likely explanation is one of the machines had not had day light time settings adjusted, the importance of this is that it puts in doubt the time a bunch of emails were sent later in the morning (11.18 on Kelly’s machine) including the email to Miller.
Miller is the one Kelly spoke to immediately he returned from inspecting the “mobile weapon labs” that Bush had gone on the telly and said this was proof positive of WMD. Kelly told Miller that Bush was talking bollocks, Miller printed the story, Kelly died.
Or did he? The formal identification of the body was performed by the family after Kelly’s eyeballs had been drained of fluid, his brain removed and his face and neck tissues dissected to bone. All is not lost though he could still been identified by his dental records except they had been tampered with.
But all this is not relevant to the fact the police lied, Hutton lied, the pathologists misled the public record and the Coroner abandoned his duty.
Mi5 were quite happy for the inconsistencies to be ever regurgitated, the press happy to oblige whist all the while the architects of the conspiracy are laughing at the stupid public.
The fact is Mi5 are making mugs of all of us.
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20041108120000/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_3_0116to0129.pdf
Kelly’s note book (see page 10)
Peter Beswick
20/09/2015 3:05 pm
Firstly I need to say that I have not studied the Kelly case in great detail. This comment is solely based upon my impression of your posting above and examining the evidence you yourself have posted to back it up.
You spend nearly 200 words claiming that Dr Kelly knew a Susan Watts of the BBC and that he would not have mistyped her name as “Wells”.
Assuming for the moment that Dr Kelly did in fact write this e-mail, he apparently had in mind a Mr Bryan Wells, whoever he is, when he wrote it. It was sent to a John Clark but addressed to “John and Bryan”. Handwritten on the copy of the e-mail that you have shown us is the name “Bryan Wells”.
I am a bit surprised that you do not find these matters suggestive. To my mind it would be very easy to mix up the names Watts and Wells, no matter how familiar one was with the name Watts. I have done the same thing myself, more than once: confused similar names when typing an e-mail or letter, then wondered how on earth I managed to do it when I knew perfectly well who I meant.
Therefore I am very sceptical of this point you have made. I can’t say anything about the plausibility of other points you have made because I simply don’t know. But that is not a very good start.
You need to bear in mind Occam’s Razor, always.
Kind regards,
John
Disinfo (13h48)
“I didn’t make the application, I was simply giving the info that an application had apparently been made with no result.”
________________
In which case you were just passing on duff misinformation.
Keep going, laddie, you’re doing well. 🙂
JSD
You need to put the hand written names alongside the typed ones to get the sense that this was not coming off the top of the writers head, the names were copied from his hand written list. Kelly would not be checking how to spell the names.
Also interesting that Julie Flint doesn’t make it onto the list.
And if Kelly fled his home a few days earlier because of the decending press did he think the coast was clear the day he returned to his home, the day after his ISC appearance, 2 days after he was on the telly. He was much bigger news on the 17th than he was on the 9th but he was able to stroll out of his front door, across the road and up the path next the pub where the press had been camped out.
But you miss my point. It doesn’t matter to me if Kelly committed suicide, he was murdered or just disapeared the important thing is that Mi5 are happy for you to consider the likelyhood of transcribing a name incorrecty instead of demanding the police officers who faked evidence and lied in court are brought to justice.
@Peter Beswick
“I appear to be blocked”
Yes you do appear to be somewhat blocked in your thinking.
Yes RD completely blocked in thinking but you helped unblock my thinking when you wrote that, I was able to think for the first time in a long time and I thought hello this is a funny twat. I’m going to cherish that thought, thank you.
” I will repeat there was something very odd about the news coverage of Lee Rigby’s death, the blood on hands / not on hands has not been explained convincingly. ”
Well it has. I suspect you just don’t want to accept the fact. The simple explanation is that the device used to record the “no blood” images was defective, the colour balance had drifted, and was recording red as orange. This can be confirmed quickly and easily by looking at the colour of the road markings, traffic sign and ‘bus which are all correctly red on other footage but orange in the “no blood” pictures. This site is one of many that explains in simple terms with pictures.
http://wafflesatnoon.com/woolwich-hoax-claims-no-blood-on-attackers-hands/
Kempe
I am not the least interested of what evidence currently exists online, I know what I saw at the time and I know it was not malsaturation effect.
The news that day was being managed and managed badly.
But my point is missed again, if Lee Rigby was killed that day it was not a terrorist attack.
Unless you consider all metally ill people who kill someone because they don’t like their race, uniform, colour of skin, religion or language etc are terrorists.
Mi5 would like you to believe that but I’ll let you in on a secret its not true.
” I am not the least interested of what evidence currently exists online, ”
Unless, it would appear, it agrees with your pre-concieved opinions as evidenced by the three links you posted previously.
The existence of the “no blood” pictures appears to be a key piece of “evidence” for conspiracists so I suppose the refusal to accept the obvious is to be expected.
Habbabkuk: In which case you were just passing on duff misinformation.
I took it at face value. What is the evidence that it is ‘duff misinformation’?
RoS: “I hardly think I need to worry about credibility, coming from you Glenn, and your CIA assets comment.”
Would you mind explaining yourself, RoS? I perceive you’re trying to be offensive, of course, but don’t see the grounds on which you’re trying to achieve it. Are you perhaps denying that the CIA ever act in an underhand manner, to sew disinformation and work the media, as in this well known example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Are you saying it is _so_ far fetched that a disinformation campaign might be organised by them, that anyone (such as myself) who suggests it is automatically a lunatic in your estimable view?