London is heading for a state of martial law. Some are saying we are already there. Craig Murray was the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan until October 2004, when he blew the whistle on British complicity in torture. He has experience of totalitarian regimes, and he wrote in a blog headed 'Martial Law Britain', on 12 July, "Those coming from Central Asia, Bahrain, Qatar or Saudi Arabia to the Olympics, interested to see what life in a democracy feels like, will find it seems exactly like life at home in their dictatorship"
Since I wrote my June newsletter the issue of G4S went viral in the UK's mainstream media. But they're still hiding a lot about the utter shambles within G4S in their training programme, as revealed first by whistleblower Sarah Hubble, who has set up a blog, then by undercover investigative journalist Lee Hazledean.
The mainstream media story is mainly about the shortfall in numbers recruited by G4S, following the announcement by the British government of the deployment of 3500 extra troops to make up that shortfall, and it goes up a further 1200 as I write this. The head of G4S, Nick Buckles, stated that he had known nothing of the issue until 6 July, and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, claimed that she had not known about it until 11 July. That's interesting, because I knew about the omnishambles, and listeners to Tony Gosling's 'Friday Drivetime' programme on BCfm Radio knew about that on 22 June.
It now appears that the Home Secretary admitted the shortfall in G4S recruitment in a letter the day after that broadcast, but no-one is quite admitting the omnishambles that was reported in Friday Drivetime. Will these people now be prosecuted for criminal negligence? Or will they be prosecuted for deception or something much worse?
Lee Hazeldean eventually revealed himself as film director Ben Fellows in a radio discussion with Lou Collins and Infowars reporter Patrick Henningsen on Liberty Tactics. Not only did he tell us more of the detail of the shambles, but he also explained why he had revealed his true identity at that stage, having told Tony Gosling that he hoped to continue working undercover until the beginning of the Olympics. Tony Gosling had asked him whether he had contacted journalist Andy Davies of Channel 4 News, and Lee Hazeldean had replied that Andy Davies didn't want to know. It was that statement that led to him eventually pulling out of the operation.
The part of the conversation relating to Andy Davies and Channel 4 News ran as follows (starting at 43:55):
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Lou: Lee, I just want to … I know Tony Gosling asked you "Have you gone to the mainstream with regards to this?"
Ben: Er, yeah, I did, I mean, erm, at first, you know. One of the reasons I kind of did this was cause - I had a contact with Channel 4 which was Andy Davies, the home affairs correspondent, and so I thought, you know, he'll run with this - he'll take it. I emailed him on the 13th of June. He rang me back and basically he said: Look, you know, there seems to be some sort of like media blackout, there's … Channel 4 are not going to be interested and are not going to do anything that would damage the Olympics. That was basically what he said to me, and I went, "Oh! OK". Well, what's been interesting is that, you know, Tony Gosling - it's really thanks to him that this story ever got out because he ran with it on his radio show and we broke the story that way, and ... but yesterday I got a phone call from Andy Davies who, erm, really was - you know - he had a go at me and pretended that I'd never met him, that I never spoke to him, that he'd never said those things, and I said to him, "But Andy, I can prove it". [laughter] You know, and erm, and basically he accused me of being a liar, and he said he wanted me to retract what I had said about him speaking to me, and I wouldn't do it and I just said to him: Look, you know, you can't rewrite history like that, I'm sorry. He just sent me an email late last night pretending he hadn't even read my email. He even said, "Oh, I've just got your email". You know, I said, "That's not going to work. [laughter] You know, I can prove my side of things; can you prove your side of things?", and he wanted me to say that I was lying, and he wanted to say - obviously G4S had put pressure on him cause I'd named him in the interview, erm, and now he's putting pressure on me.
Lou: So he's putting pressure, hang on, he's putting pressure on you to say you were lying about him or lying about what you've been exposing?
Ben: No, no, lying about him.
Lou: Right. OK
Ben: He didn't care about me exposing G4S; it was because he was involved. And I'd spoken to him, and so he wanted me to basically say to everybody, "Actually, you know, I was lying, I've never said those things to Andy Davies. I never went to him, bla bla bla bla bla", and that's not true [laughter]. I mean it's simply not true. And erm, and I told him this: I wouldn't do it, and I was recording this conversation as you can tell, he was acting all kind of supersilious and arrogant and bogus, cause, like I was sort of recording something, erm, and so, you know, it was really disturbing to me. And he basically offered me a [???]. He comes with "Look, your story on G4S might have merrit". It might have merrit, mate? It's gone global [laughter]
Lou: Yeah, yeah.
Ben: You know, and so, erm, and he said, "Look, if you retract your statement I will sit down with you and talk to you about your story, and I went, "No, I'm not going to do that, you know, and really we had, you know, what, you know, I mean I was full of adrenalin; I wasn't expecting it. It came out of the blue. It was a late at night, you know. He called me at home. You know, if I hadn't spoken to him, how could he have my number? But he called be at home. You know what I mean? It's ridiculous, you know. what's going on.
Lou: Yep. Totally ridiculous.
Ben: And so he's going to expose me now, basically - that's what I think is going to happen - to G4. He knows who I am, and so erm he can tell G4S "Look, this is the person, this is what they're doing. But now it's gone from being a story about security to a story about a journalist, you know, trying to bully and control another journalist into lying, and this is the mainstream media we're talking about. We're not talking about some, you know, I don't know, bullies from down the road; we're talking about people who work for Channel 4 ITN News doing this. You know, I mean this is outrageous. Luckily, I recorded the conversation last night, er, because [???] didn't sound good, so I'll record this, and I'm glad I did this now because I wouldn't, you know, some things he said, and how he said them. I wouldn't be able to prove to anybody; they wouldn't believe me, you know, it's crazy.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Lou Collins then said that she had phoned the BBC News Press Office with the story and was told that the message would be passed on and they would get someone to call her back. But it wasn't the BBC who phoned back; it was G4S telling her that she should not go on air and she should not be discussing the interview with Tony Gosling.
More evidence of pressure to gag the press on negative stories on the Olympics is revealed in a discussion between Lou Collins, Ben Fellows, and Brian Gerrish, put out on the UKColumn website on 5 July.
As far as I am aware, this gives us a unique insight into the mechanics of censureship in the British press, of which the whole of the truth movement is very aware, and of which George Orwell was aware in 1949 when he wrote in his censured preface to 'Animal Farm': "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. ... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
It now appears that that censureship is not as voluntary as it appears. I queried in my June newsletter whether there could have been a D-notice on Olympics security; now it appears that the news blackout was brought about by intimidation on the part of G4S. Perhaps we could call it a 'G-notice'. It's not top-down censureship as in an open dictatorship; it's bottom-up censureship brought about by pressure of vested interests on individuals.
I think it would be wrong to single out Andy Davies for criticism over this; after all, Ben Fellows would have regarded Andy Davies as the one who was most likely to take his story. There can hardly be a single political journalist in the mainstream media who doesn't feel for Andy Davies; any one of them could have been in a similar position. Whether one should submit to intimidation is a not the point, and I don't have enough detail to know what the pressures were anyway; the point is that people do submit to intimidation. "In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves", wrote George Orwell in that same preface. Surely now is a good moment for political journalists to make a stand against intimidation; they have a professional interest in being seen to be telling the truth rather than as political propagandists. When it comes to a security shambles of Olympic proportions lives are at stake. They should interview Ben Fellows and give him full credit for what he has done. This issue will not go away.
Instead, Ben Fellows and others are staging their own event to bring this issue to the attention of the public. The event 'The Perfect G4Shambles' will take place in London on 25 July, when Ben Fellows will talk on 'Exposing the G4S debacle ... from the INSIDE!', Tony Gosling will talk on 'Exposing the mainstream media coverup', and Ian R Crane will talk on 'London 2012 ... Set up to FAIL!'. Their newsletter says that they will "produce the evidence which will effectively prove that the G4S debacle is a contrived event to facilitate the militarisation of London".
But despite their shortcomings, the mainstream media are coming out with some of the information on the corporate takeover of the Olympic Games. 'Britain flooded with "brand police" to protect sponsors' ran a headline in The Independent on 16 July . "Hundreds of uniformed Olympics officers will begin touring the country today enforcing sponsors' multimillion-pound marketing deals, in a highly organised mission that contrasts with the scramble to find enough staff to secure Olympic sites. … Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000. … Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including 'gold', 'silver' and 'bronze', 'summer', 'sponsors' and 'London'", they write. I added a comment: "Next they'll be imprisoning Max Keiser for wanting to go back to the gold standard". This is a corporate takeover, in which corporations can censure the press, bring about new legislation, deploy police officers to enforce it, and even enjoy tax breaks, so that the public doesn't get any financial benefit out of their enterprise. I've just signed a petition demanding that Olympic corporate sponsors pay their fair share of tax and another one on the same site to ban secret lobbying.
It seems the police are no longer there to protect the public, but that their role is, as Tony Farrell was told, merely "footsoldiers of the government". The verdict, just announced, of 'Not Guilty' in the trial of PC Simon Harwood, whose vicious attack on bystander Ian Tomlinson during the G20 demonstrations was seen by millions, was described by a spokesman for his family as 'a joke'. I'm sure the family will have widespread sympathy among the public, and that there will be increasing concern over the role of the courts.
On 18 July the verdict was announce on the case of the 'zombies' arrested during the royal wedding, which I reported on in my April/May newsletter. The verdict was that the police acted lawfully. The campaigners are warning: "... this result could be interpreted as giving the police carte blanche to perform more pre-emptive arrests of 'known activists' over the Olympics".
Our London colleague Mark Windows recently reported how a police officer attempted to entrap him by planting a knife in a tube carriage. Truth campaigners need now to be very careful. Most truth campaigners I know say they will stay well clear of London, but it can be a bit difficult for those who live there.
It seems, that the BBC is planning some further disinformation on 'conspiracy theories'. Infowars London correspondent Paul Watson was invited to take part in a 'Conspiracy Theories' documentary from 9/11 to the Olympics and, in April, I received an invitation to take part in a new BBC documentary on 7/7 to express my "beliefs". "Should I?", I asked my colleagues in 9/11 Keep Talking. We all agreed to ignore it.
I mentioned in my April/May newsletter a new book on Operation Gladio called 'Gladio: NATO's Dagger At The Heart Of Europe' by Richard Cottrell. I made contact with Richard Cottrell, a former journalist and MEP for Bristol, and on 16 July he provided the following analysis for this newsletter:
"The morning's crop of stories on the Great Olympics Cock-up are - taken at face value - another example of legendary British incompetence in handling large scale events. There's an element of that, of course, but it seems to me that what we are really seeing is a good lacing of deliberate and intentional incompetence.
"In short, lax security, inadequate numbers of trained personnel, last minute discovery of the almost complete collapse of efforts by a private security to firm to man the Olympics, are less the product of organic chaos than designer made preparations for some kind of false flag incident.
"That Theresa May is not fit for any kind of important political duty is quite obvious: but of course that makes this hapless minister for synthetic chaos the perfect individual in the right place at the right time.
"If something does go wrong, then the government has a made-to-order alibi: we did all we could, we brought in the army, we brought in the artillery, we even scraped the bottom of the Thames with one of our few remaining warcraft. We trusted a private security firm to deliver on time, which they did not, but since they failed to get things in order right up to the last moment, we had to either cancel the Olympics and disappoint millions, or press ahead in the confidence that extra trained personnel from the police and armed forces would suffice.
"Yes it sounds pretty thin but in the unfortunate circumstances of some kind of attack (which need not by the way be devastating, rather more a great headline generator) the strongest defence will lie with 'attacking our way of life, pleasures and freedoms' and so forth. 'No-one even in perfect circumstances could guarantee the bomber would not get through.'
"It seems to me that this could be the real script behind the warm up act which is now plastered all over the media."
I would be happy if they were to just cancel the Olympics. The Olympic ideal is dead. Like all good ideas it has been taken over by vested interests and turned into something it was never intended to be. The company G4S itself now becomes a primary security risk, because if anyone is intending to explode bombs during the Olympics they will already have infiltrated G4S, and may well have their explosives in place already. The Olympic contract with G4S should be cancelled with immediate effect, whatever the cost. Nick Kollerstrom, author of 'Terror on the Tube' writes, "If you have a ticket for the Olympics, get rid of it! Just stay away".
If there is a terror incident linked to the Olympics, it is likely that the authorities will very quickly put into the minds of the public the idea that it "bears all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda", or, as Tony Blair put it after the London bombings of 7 July 2005, "We know these people act in the name of Islam". Shortly after I had written the previous sentence I heard on the news of a bus of Israeli tourists who had been blown up in Bulgaria. According to one witness it was caused by a suicide bomber in the bus, and according to another witness the blast was in the luggage compartment under the bus. Yet two hours later Israel blamed Iran. Doesn't this sound just like 7/7?
The constant repetition of the mantra means that most people will come to believe it, whatever contrary evidence is subsequently found. Yet if there is an incident at the Olympics, the probability of such statements being true has to be extremely low for anyone who has studied previous terror events, as South Yorkshire Police's Principal Intelligence Analist Tony Farrell did before he was sacked, as I have reported in previous newsletters. The idea that our own authorities could be a party to mass murder is still implausible to most people, yet there is overwhelming evidence to support just that.
The case of Operation Gladio is well documented and should be much more widely known. US film producer Allan Francovich produced a three-part documentary, 'NATO's Secret Armies', in which he interviewed key Gladio players such as Propaganda Due head, Licio Gelli, Italian neofascist and terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Venetian judge Felice Casson, Italian Gladio commander General Gerardo Serravale, Belgian Senator Roger Lallemand, Belgian gendarme Martial Lekue and former CIA director William Colby. This was broadcast in the UK on BBC 2 in June 1992. The episodes were: 1: Gladio: The Ring Masters (1992-06-10); 2: Gladio: The Puppeteers (1992-06-10); 3: Gladio: The Footsoldiers (1992-06-24). (Five years later, Allan Francovich died whilst going through US customs in Texas.
The first academic study of Operation Gladio was produced by swiss historian Daniele Ganser in his book 'NATO's Secret Armies'. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe'. That was published on 22 December 2004, and so would have been selling during the six months prior to 7/7. The world should have been alerted; many academics, politicians and journalists must have been aware of this, yet no-one was publicly raising the question of whether 7/7 could have been a part of Operation Gladio, or some such activity by NATO forces. The book has since appeared in nine further languages.
Now, as I reported in my April/May newsletter, former British television journalist and Member of the European Parliament Richard Cottrell has just authored a book 'GLADIO NATO's Dagger at the heart of Europe: The Pentagon-Nazi-Mafia terror axis', published by Progressive Press in May 2012. So next time there's another terror event, will questions be raised on Gladio? Well, one has just happened in Bulgaria, and no, nothing at all is being said on Gladio.
It seems to me that to counter the mantra of 'The Muslims done it', we need our own mantra. I think we need to get the name 'Gladio' out there far and wide. It's not the explanations that matter now, because there are plenty of explanations already on the web, but it's the number of times the word 'Gladio' gets repeated that matters, even if initially few people know what it is. The mission should be to get it out there in blogs and comments to blogs on news sites. If they state that the incident bears all the hallmarks of Al Qaida, then perhaps we should respell the name as 'Al CIA da'. After all, Al Qaida always has been a US database of CIA operatives and their co-fighters. What has changed? Key truth campaigners may find their computers are down; this has to be a grass roots activity.
I think that truth campaigners generally would agree with MI5's assessment that the risk is 'substantial'. If nothing happens we may well be called 'paranoid', but so what? - we're all paranoid now. On 12 July Sky News reported: "An employee for security firm G4S has told Sky News he believes there is a 50-50 chance someone could carry a bomb into one of the Olympic venues."
On 17 June we held a meeting of the 9/11 Keep Talking group that Nick Kollerstrom and I run in London, to discuss the possibility of a false-flag attack during the Olympics. Noel Glynn talked about his own analysis, which he had previously distributed quite widely by email. His analysis was based on an article called 'How to Stop a False Flag Terror Attack' by David Chase Taylor, who lists six signs that a false flag terror event is likely to happen. These are explained unde the headings:
- News & Propaganda,
- Whitepapers & Documents,
- Internal Memos,
- Plots & Patsies,
- Private Security Firms,
- Drills, War Games & Military Exercises
Noel Glynn reached the conclusion that five out of six of those signs have been met. "My conclusion from all of the above is that there are plenty of warning signs that a false flag attack may be planned for the Olympics at the very moment when the eyes of the world are concentrated on London. This is enough to cause serious worry but not enough to feel certain that is what is happening. Alternatively an attack could be called off due to the fact that this possibility is getting too much publicity", he writes. He also draws attention to signs to look for after such an attack:
- A terror script,
- Conflicting reports,
- Suspect identified within 24 hours,
- Cui bono - who benefits,
Let's consider when and where such an event could happen, should it happen. Nick Kollerstrom's concern is the amount of radioactive waste under the Olympic Stadium, and what the effects of that would be should an explosion rock the foundations. That might suggest an incident in the Olympic stadium itself at any time during the games, such as the scenario described in the BBC television series 'Spooks Code 9', in which there is a nuclear attack at the opening ceremony. Just as I was leaving, someone pointed out that the final day of the Paralympics was the 11th of September. That's food for thought.
My own analysis was based on the scenario analysis by the Rockefeller Foundation, on which I reported in my June newsletter, and which investigative journalist Adrian Salbuchi thought might have been intended as a warning to the Establishment insiders of a planned false flag attack. In one scenario they talked of a bombing that kills 13000 people at the London Olympics. If Adrian Salbuchi is right on that, then they would have to specify in their coded warning three things: what, where and when. The 'what' and the 'where' are clear, but the 'when' is vague; it would have to be more specific than the period of the Olympics, since an absence of the Establishment insiders for the whole of the Olympics would be conspicuous. So we have to look for a day. I wrote in my June newsletter: "I wonder if, when translated, they could mean: 'the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13 August, 1000'. The thirteenth of August is the day the crowds will disperse from the Olympics". The stage could already be set, for instance at Heathrow Airport's new Olympic terminal. We seem to be being prepared for an event.
'400 soldiers patrol Heathrow amid terror fears' reports the Daily Mail, saying that 450 troops with armoured cars had moved in because of the ending of the Muslim festival of Eid.
Then Sky News reported: 'US Security Agents "At Heathrow For Olympics"'. I left a comment on the Daily Mail report of this: "Foreign troops in security operations in a British airport is itself a potential breach of national security. British national security should be handled by British people working for the British public. This is really, really dangerous".
On the other hand, I now realise that the area of the Olympic Stadium is Hackney and Lee Valley, London E10. 'Hacken Lee' is the name of a Chinese singer who 'hosted' the Olympic Games in Beijing, as Wikipedia puts it. An advertisement which appeared on Chinese television for the Euro 2012 Football Championship features an athlete with 'Hacken Lee 10' on his T-shirt. This is an aggressive advert which depicts the destruction of London. Now look at a video of the British contribution to the closing ceremony at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. The Rockefeller Foundation's scenario in which 13000 people die is called 'Hack Attack'. Could it make sense for there to be an attack on 13 August in Hackney and Lee Valley, post code E10?
At our Keep Talking meeting, one person, Kevin O'Connor thought that the hyping up of a terrorist threat might just be bluff, and that any attack might come after the Olympic Games (http://kevinclarion.wordpress.com). I did hold a view that they might be able to instill the required level of fear in that way, for a military clampdown, but having now seen the scepticism of the public in what they are being told by politicians following the latest G4S debacle, I now have some doubts on that. There was some discussion on how big such an event might be. I suspect, like Richard Cottrell that a small event could cause an enormous amount of havoc, especially if it disrupted the transport system. After all, it didn't take an Olympic Games to cause the havoc of the August riots last year. What did cause them?
Just as I try to bring my newsletter to a close I hear of a further example of Establishment censorship in the UK. The BBC were due to broadcast a two-part documentary drama based on the riots on July 16 and 18 when they received a court order stating: "It is ordered that the BBC programme 'The Riots: In their Own Words' due for broadcast on BBC 2 tonight is not broadcast by any media by any means until further order". Another part of the ruling states: "Further the clip currently available for viewing on the BBC website be removed forthwith". The BBC told The Guardian that for legal reasons it could not disclose details of the court. The film had been based on research by The Guardian and the London School of Economics, and some of their data is published on The Guardian's website. Perhaps the suspicions of many truth campaigners may be substantiated.
Whatever does or doesn't happen at the Olympics, the event is likely to provide a hugh distraction. I see that The Sunday Times of 22 July gives extensive coverage to a preemptive claim by Israel that Iran may carry out a repeat of the Munich massacre of 1972, but I could find no mention in the paper edition of the recent scandal in Germany concerning the far-right involvement in the Munich massacre, with the knowledge of the German security service. I can already envisage writing in a future newsletter something like: "As the world was distracted by the great Olympic sideshow, Syria / Iran was invaded by NATO/Israeli troops".
Richard Cottrell made a very interesting point to me on what might happen after the Olympics: "Why has Blair selected precisely this window of opportunity to declare he'd like another go at PM", he asks, "Does he mean PM or something a trifle more enduring? Shall we say, non-elective as a clue. Have the hour and the man met at last?". Indeed, whatever happens or doesn't happen during the Olympics, we could eventually end up with a Fascist dictatorship - or a corporate state, to use the current PC form - in the UK; Tony Blair could never be freely elected ever again. In his memoirs, Tony Blair described the Freedom of Information Act as one of his greatest mistakes while in office. Indeed it was. If you want to be a tyrant you don't do that sort of thing. The Information Commissioner recently claimed that secret documents were being destroyed, and that Whitehall officials were using private email addresses to evade scrutiny. But some information does get out.
Secret documents were being destroyed in Germany, too. Richard Cottrell contributed a commentary in the 'End the Lie' website on the recent resignation of the German spy chief, Heinz Fromm, following the destruction by government agents of files on a far-right terrorist cell behind murderous attacks on immigrants. . Richard's analysis, headed 'German Gladio redux: Neo-Nazi murder scandal engulfs Merkel's government' describes this as "a strange case that once again points to security agencies stirring synthetic violence for political ends". This follows the revelation concerning the involvement of neo-Nazis in the Munich Olympic massacre of 1972, which I reported on in my June newsletter. When will people start resigning over the destruction of secret documents in the UK?
Tyrants love false-flag attacks, in which they create a disturbance then blame it on their opponents. An understanding of Operation Gladio is key to understanding what is going on in British politics today, both at home and abroad. Suddenly, things begin to make sense. The situation in Syria makes sense, and remember that the CIA was behind the overthrow of the Mossadeq government in Iran, and the rise to power of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. Are those nice people in positions of power in the UK capable of such attrocities as torture and murder? Well look at the case of four elderly Kenyans, one now deceased, who have been trying to claim justice following the Kenyan uprising of the 1950s. The defence is the usual hypocritical mantra of 'That's history'. A new video, which shows how things can be seen very differently if you have the right glasses on, has been produced by some of our Keep Talking people. It's called 'Kollerstrom and Farrell are dead'. It has now appeared in lots of places on the web, such as the website of the Kent Freedom Movement.
The immediate objective is to save lives, but a good general will always look ahead to the following battle. Hillary Clinton says that they are losing the information war; we must win it. Remember to keep talking, and don't forget the words 'Gladio' and 'Al CIAda'.
Ian Fantom
No comments:
Post a Comment