Sunday, 29 July 2012

The G4Shambles, Gladio and AL-CIA-DA

July 2012

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

Monday, 16 July 2012

The Perfect G4Storm

June 2012

NOTE: This newsletter contains some important and urgent information whichis being suppressed by the mainstream media. Please feel free to distribute it to anyone you feel may be interested.

The head of Britain's internal security service MI5, Jonathan Evans, talking about the possibility of a terrorist event during the London Olympic Games, has stated that the national threat level is assessed to be SUBSTANTIAL - meaning that an attack is a "strong possibility". He also stated: "The fact that there have been no successful al Qaida related terrorist attacks in Britain since 2005 is the result of a great deal of hard and creative work by the security, intelligence and Police services". Yet what did happen on 7 July 2005? (What we do know is that much of what we, the public, were told turned out to be untrue). I wonder what "creative work" means.

Jonathan Evans was giving the Lord Mayor's Annual Defence and Security Lecture in the City of London on 25 June 2012, titled 'The Olympics and Beyond'. The last time he had given a public lecture was on 16 September 2010, when he told the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals: "There will be a major security operation to support the Games, but we should not underestimate the challenge of mounting the Games securely in an environment with a high terrorist threat, the first time this has been attempted". The first time this has been attempted, he says!

A resident of Newham, where much of the Olympic Park is situated, writes on the Games Monitor website that "a sense of foreboding has descended on many of the people who, like me, live and work in Newham in east London". He points out that 24% of the residents are Muslim, and that during Ramadan the streets of Newham are likely to be very busy late into the evening. Against this background there will be "the largest peacetime military and security operation since 1945". But his main concern is the massive policing operation and its impact on local people. Police officers will have the power to instruct groups of two or more people who live outside the area to leave for up to 24 hours. They will have curfew powers for unaccompanied people under the age of 16. "Coupled with a range of stop and search powers under criminal, anti-social behaviour and anti-terrorist legislation, NMP's [Newham MonitoringProject's] fear is that young people in particular and ethnic minorities in general will be subjected to a level of intrusive policing that is likely to lead [to] arrests and criminalisation", he explains.

Why would anyone want to stage the Olympic Games under such conditions if their aim was not to create a police state?

Temporary measures in politics usually turn out not to be so temporary after all. Indeed, Jonathan Evans said in his recent lecture, "We are also anticipating an Olympic security legacy after the Games". I suggested in my last newsletter that there could be a security crack-down at the time ofthe Olympics whether or not there was a terrorist event. The Government has created enough fear in the minds of the public as to be able to take all sorts of measures to limit our freedoms. To see what the latest security restrictions are, see the Big Brother Watch website.

If we have not yet been told the truth on the London bombings of 7/7, how can we trust the Government, or MI5, in statements on some forthcoming terror event in London? Is MI5 telling the truth about Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism? My previous reports on the two main government think tanks, Policy Exchange and Demos, suggest that there is gross deception on the terrorist threat supposedly posed by Muslims in the UK. Indeed, I have reported on the sacking of South Yorkshire Police's Principal Intelligence Officer, Tony Farrell, for concluding that the threat of terrorism from UK Muslims is negligible compared to that coming from our own government.

The issue of 7/7 needs to be investigated, just as 9/11 needs to be investigated. According to an article appearing on the Muslim Brotherhood's website, IkhwanWeb , on 15 September 2007, the now newly elected Presidentof Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, stated on the sixth anniversary of 9/11:

"The US administration has never presented any evidences on the identity of those who committed that incident. The Muslim Brotherhood and others demanded a transparent trial with clear evidence and to have court rulings. We confirm that this isn't a defense to those who committed these actions but we only seek the truth".

The article also makes clear that immediately after the 9/11 attacks happened, the Muslim Brotherhood condemned them, seeing them as "totally divorced from any religion or creed, actions which are totally rejected by Islam".

According to an article in the Washington Times on 31 May this year, Dr Morsi in 2008 called on the US to provide "scientific" proof for its account of events.

"We have officially demanded a fair trial for 9/11 suspects and the issuance of a detailed scientific report about the attacks, but the U.S. administration did not respond till now", Mr. Morsi told Ikhwanweb, the Washington Times reports. "This requires a huge scientific conference that is devoted to analyzing what caused the attack against a massive structure like the two WTC towers," he said, referring to the World Trade Center. "Should this happen, we will stand firmly against whoever committed this horrific crime against innocent civilians". However,the Washington Times reports negatively about the personality of Dr Morsi,and adds that Osama bin Laden admitted his terror group's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks in a videotaped message in October 2004. The website Muslims for 9/11 Truth reproduces this article but refutes the statement on Bin Laden, stating: "False! Bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for 9/11, deplored the attacks, called them un-Islamic, and blamed 'some people with their own agenda' and 'American Jews' for the attacks in repeated statements before his death in December, 2001". The same website states: "Add Mohamed Morsi to the lists of heads of state who openly support 9/11truth. Presidents Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, former PMMahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, and Fidel Castro of Cuba preceded him".

Many other issues involving the UK security services need to be investigated, too. Just from the issues reported in my news letters one could begin to wonder whether the people in the United Kingdom may be more secure, and democracy may be better safeguarded, if MI5, MI6 and ACPO (The Association of Chief Police Officers) ceased to exist.

Recently, Brighton's Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, made a sensational revelation in Parliament, concerning undercover police officer Bob Lambert,who had infiltrated the Animal Liberation Movement, and who had been unmasked, as reported in my earlier newsletters. On Wednesday, 13 June, she told parliament: "In July 1987, three branches of Debenhams, in Luton,Romford and Harrow, were targeted by the ALF in co-ordinated, simultaneous incendiary attacks because the shops were selling fur products. Sheppard and Clarke were tried and found guilty, but the culprit who planted the incendiary device in the Harrow store was never caught. Bob Lambert's exposure as an undercover police officer has prompted Geoff Sheppard to speak out about that Harrow attack. Sheppard alleges that Lambert was the one who planted the third device and was involved in the ALF's co-ordinatedcampaign"

She went on to quote a statement by Sheppard, in which he said: "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the Debenhams store in Harrow. I specifically remember him giving an explanation to me about how he had been able to place one of the devices in that store, but how he had not been able to place the second device." Sheppard also alleged that the intelligence for the raid was so precise that it was now obvious that it "came from Bob Lambert", who knew that the pair were going to be there making another set of incendiary devices.

Caroline Lucas talked of police obstructionism in investigating the issues of undercover officers, including the holding of investigations in secret, and concluded that she hoped that the Government would "agree to set up a far reaching public inquiry into undercover police infiltrators and informers, looking back over past practices as well as looking forward".

In a Guardian blog, Rob Evans writes (Monday 25 June 2012 15.25 BST): "By any measure, the allegation is startling and serious, and the public should know whether it is true or not. So who is investigating?" - "The answer to that question is typically opaque".

A similar case has now arisen in Germany concerning the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, in which Palestinian militants with a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist group called 'Black September' took nine Israeli athletes hostage and demanded the release of several hundred Palestinians from Israeli prisons. When the police attempted to free the Israelis at the F├╝rstenfeldbruck military airport, where they were being held in two helicopters, the terrorists murdered all of their hostages. A police officer also died in the firefight. Three of the Palestinians survived. That was the official account, but the German magazine Spiegel has now come up with new evidence.

"Though it was never proved, left-wing extremists were suspected of working with the Palestinian terrorists behind the operation. But previously unreleased files seen by SPIEGEL prove that neo-Nazis were involved instead -- and officials knew about it", wrote theSpiegel on 17 June

The previously classified documents were provided by the German domestic intelligence service (BfV) in response to a request by SPIEGEL. "This evidence practically proved that the suspicion that German neo-Nazi Pohland Abramowski were collaborating with the Palestinian terrorists was in fact true", says Spiegel. According to the article, Pohl claims to have had no knowledge of the planned attack in Munich at the time. He claims that there was talk of hostage-taking in Germany in which the Palestinians planned to exchange 20 Israelis for some 200 fellow Palestinian militants in Israeli prisons. "The Palestinians insisted that it would be a bloodless incident, and they asked the two Germans what they thought the Germanpublic would think about it", Spiegel reports. "The German courts treated Pohl and Abramowski with astonishing leniency. ... . Only four days after sentencing, Pohl was released and fled to Beirut", Spiegel reported.

Assuming that Pohl is inverting the truth, the pattern emerging here is consistent with that of Operation Gladio, in which protest groups intending perhaps to create minor diversions find themselves involved in something much bigger and more sinister than they had ever imagined, having been infiltrated and manipulated by undercover agents of the security forces. So if it has taken 40 years for an investigation of the Munich Olympics attackto be announced, how long will it take to get a proper investigation into the London terror attacks of 7 July 2005?

I attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing in London for the case of Tony Farrell, in which he is appealing against unfair dismissal from South Yorkshire Police when, in 2010 he reached the conclusion that the risk to the public of terrorism from Islamic extremists was negligible compared with that from our own government. In September 2011 an employment tribunal in Sheffield dismissed his case, and on Friday 15 June his appeal to that was heard in London. The essence of his appeal was that it should have been plainly obvious to the Employment Tribunal judge that he was being poorly represented by his legal team; they had advised him to appeal on the grounds that he had been dismissed because of his religious beliefs rather than for making protected disclosures in the process of refusing to carry out a management instruction which would have been unlawful. Indeed, when Tony Farrell broke the news of his story at a meeting of our Keep Talking group in London some of us expressed concern about the religious discrimination angle. Part way through his Sheffield hearing, truth campaigner Ian Crane, who was not legally qualified, tookover Tony's representation with more credible argumentation.

Tony's case was dismissed by the judge in London, in a ruling that took ten minutes to prepare and twenty minutes to read out. Essentially, the reason was that the appeal hearing could only consider new points of law,and that there was a precedent which contradicted Tony's case. Clearly, something has gone very wrong with this case.

One point that caught my attention in particular was made by the judge after Tony Farrell's barrister had acknowledged that it was not the job of the tribunal to reach conclusions of fact, meaning that it could only consider points of law, but that the official version of events does not stack up. The judge responded by saying that he was quite right in saying that it was no business of his to judge that issue, adding that Lady Justice Hallett had dealt with that. Lady Justice Hallett had run the inquest into 52 victims of the London bombings, specifically excluding the four Muslim lads widely alleged to have committed the atrocities. It was outside her remit to determine the guilt or innocence of those four. In fact, she stated their guilt right at the beginning of the proceedings,with no examination of the facts. I was surprised that the Employment Appeal Tribunal judge could have made such a comment, just as I had been surprised that Lady Justice Hallett could have made the allegation of guilt before her inquest proceedings had begun. Clearly, something has gone verywrong with this case, too.

I was, however, impressed at the 23-page skeletal argument document ,which Tony had produced. It may or may not have had legal validity, but it does retell the story in a formal way, with the emphasis which it should perhaps have had right from the beginning. The important point for me is that Tony had already been making representation to his employers expressing concern at the statistical method being imposed nationally by the Home Office in producing a Risk Assessment Matrix. He made it known that in his opinion these matrices were flawed, and when applied too generically were nonsensical. An 'Orwellian speak' was creeping in. "And so it was that a new simplified language emerged. Principals were horrified but seemed powerless to stop the madness", the document states. "Blind acceptance of the Government's rhetoric on threat levels would invariably point towards imminent threats from Al Qaeda / Islamic Extremism. Such values fed into the matrix would in turn be used by ACPO to make the case for extra resource allocation to enhance counter terrorism activity under CONTEST II", the document states.

"Trusting what they tell us is a leap of faith. That faith was destroyed once it dawned on the Claimant that the retrospective official narratives of 9/11 and 7/7 were full of very serious distortions and omissions", the document explained. I think this document is an important document in the history of the truth movement, because it describes how the Government was manipulating statistics in order to advance their own version of events, at the same time claiming that the evidence was coming from the professionals. I look forward to seeing this document on some website somewhere. It is of direct relevance to current claims of risks of terrorist attacks coming from Muslim extremists during the Olympic Games, as being put forward by the Government, and MI5.

Journalist Adrian Salbuchi, who is based in Buenos Aires and is a regular contributor to Russia Today, has been trying to draw attention to a 'scenario analysis' published by the Rockefeller Foundation in May 2010. The Rockefeller Foundation is right at the heart of the Establishment in the US, and what they produce has to be taken seriously. He wrote to journalist Tony Gosling, who posted his request on his 9/11 Forum. It read: "Please find below an article that I consider to be very important. Surprisingly (?), it was rejected by those who'normally' publish my works... May I ask you kindly help us to spread this information as far and wide as possible". His article is headed 'Are the London Olympics a target for a False-Flag Attack?'.

He explains that false-flag attacks carry their tell-tale signs, because, when planned, they must include some sort of communication so that those in the know can make sure that neither they nor their associates or loved ones should happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (ED: like Silverstein just happened to be at a doctor's appointment on 9/11 and his son and daughter were late for a meeting at the "Windows on the World" restaurant). "Is somethingalong these lines on Global Power Master drawing boards for the up-coming London O lympics?", he asks. "The question would surely sound ludicrous, were it not for a May 2010 Report issued by The Rockefeller Foundation (RF)and Global Business Network (GBN) that 'predicts' exactly that", he explains. The text of his article reveals that in one of their scenarios they talk of a bombing that kills 13,000 people at the London Olympics.

"Called 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development', it carries introductions by RF president Judith Rodin and GBN chairman Peter Schwartz, both members of the powerful New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think-tank, a key geo political planning node of the Global Power structure embedded deep inside the US", writes Adrian Salbuchi. So I looked up the report to see what I could make of it.

I found it was written in the same sort of pseudo-scientific sociological clap-trap that the deceptive reports that I had previously studied by the British think tanks Demos and Policy Exchange had been written in. In his introductory letter, Peter Schwartz writes: "Perhaps most importantly, scenarios give us a new, shared language that deepens our conversations about the future and how we can help to shape it". Indeed, once we can understand the language they are written in, we can understand their purpose and their warnings. The report does the usual thing of starting off in what Adrian Salbuchi calls "rather nondescript terms". In fact, the first eight pages are carefully preparing the reader for a set of false alternatives, the alternatives which the authors wish to guide us into, but ignoring any other alternatives that any normal person might think of, such as ending the current wars by bringing about more openness and transparency, or doing a deal between the US and Russia in which they will call off all proxy wars. What they do instead is to direct the reader to just four possible scenarios, which they call 'Lock Step', 'Clever Together', 'Hack Attack' and 'Smart Scramble', all of which are doomsdays cenarios.

The 'Hack Attack' scenario includes the following paragraph: "Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the 'doom decade' for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change". 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 (ED: also a masonic number).

All four of these scenarios are presented as 'plausible'. Indeed, they write: "The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive - rather,they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like". They also state: "Together, a set of scenarios captures a range of future possibilities, good and bad, expected and surprising - but always plausible". So the Rockefeller Foundation is actually stating that it is plausible that thirteen thousand people will die in a bombing during the London Olympic Games.

Indeed, in his introductory letter, Peter Schwartz states: "Through interviews and the scenario workshops, they have engaged a diverse set of people - from different geographies, disciplines, and sectors - to identify the key forces driving change, to explore the most critical uncertainties,and to develop challenging yet plausible scenarios and implications". So what have all these people been doing in their analysis, and why is that not explained in the report? Is this based on some serious analysis of publicly available material - in which case one would expect an account of their thinking - or is it based on information known only to the Global Elite? All they need to have done was to ask a class of first year sociology students to come up with four scenarios of doom, and they would have produced just as good a result, unless there's something they're nottelling us.

So how likely is a terrorist attack in London during the Olympics of 2012? What better way could there be of assessing this than to listen to an investigative journalist who is training undercover as a security guard for the London Olympics with private security firm G4S? Lee Hazledean is a filmmaker and investigative TV journalist, who has also been involved in major stories such as how the British Army infiltrated the IRA and carried out false flag operations. Unusually, he broke his story whilst still operating undercover, hoping nevertheless to continue his undercover work until the Olympics. Presumably he is using an assumed name.

In a deeply worrying interview on Tony Gosling's Friday Drivetime slot on BCfm Radio in Bristol on Friday 22 June he reported that security training is so appalling that the safety and security of the London 2012 Olympics are in jeopardy. The 'Rapiscan' walk-through metal detectors don't work properly and aren't sensitive enough to pick up large knives, ammunition and other metallic threats. He was told that they would be set to go off only after 50 people have walked through to limit queuing time and to get spectators into the venue. G4S are recruiting long-term unemployed people as security officers, regardless of how suitable they are for the role. In training classes, there is drug dealing, some people can't speak any English whatsoever, and others are constantly making jokes about disabled people. People who haven't even completed their training are being picked to be Team Leaders over highly trained security officers, ex-soldiers and ex-police. Uniforms are going missing, and people are taking photos on their mobile phones in the training facility.

Also, there are plans for the evacuation of London; G4S are going to be at the forefront, as well as 100,000 troops coming in via Woolwich barracks, made up of regular British Forces, American regular army and European troops. Lee was not told why there would be any need for an evacuation of the whole of London, they just said it was to be a "defining moment in the history of London". The troops are being held across London in various barracks once they've been through Woolwich. Lee also had this information confirmed by an army doctor who was shocked at all the foreign troops coming into London. There is also a shipment of what are being described as'casket linings'; each casket can hold four or five people, and 200,000 casket linings have been delivered, he believes, from America. Also, they were shown videos of drones attacking targets in Afghanistan, and were told that drones would be patrolling the skies over London during the Olympics, carrying out surveillance and search and destroy missions if necessary. Lee believes there is something fundamentally wrong with how the security for the Olympics is being implemented by G4S.

Lee also discovered that there is a media black-out on all major news outlets to do with the Olympics. Tony Gosling suggested to him that he raise this with Channel 4's Andy Davies, but he said that Andy Davies didn't want to know. I would be interested to know how such news blackouts occur, because I've suspected them before. There is a system of 'D-notices', by which the Government makes it known that a certain issue may be voluntarily avoided by the press, but that there may be consequences if they ignore it. Is there a D-notice on the Olympics arrangements, or is there some other censureship process at work? Is the D-notice system being abused? If so, how should journalists fight back? If Tony Farrell of the South Yorkshire Police can stand up to authority in defending his obligation to report things to his bosses that they don't want to hear,then could there be some journalists who would be prepared to take a similar stance in the mainstream media? Do Russia Today and Aljazeera come under the D-notice system, or would they get banned, as Iran's Press TV did?

A week earlier, a Darlington data entry clerk turned whistleblower was sacked by G4S after having told ITV's North-East Tonight programme of the shambles at the G4S offices in Thornaby, near Stockton. She told the programme that staff were cutting corners while screening security workers applying for jobs at the London Olympics. Sarah Hubble told viewers: "It was an absolute shambles - you had people vetting potential employees who had not been vetted themselves". She said that her experiences had prompted her to pursue a career in journalism. "I got a taste of what journalism could be like and I loved every single second of it, so much so that I want more," she said. This was reported in the Northern Echo on 2nd June 2012 and reached the Daily Mail. This story ties up with Lee Hazledean's story. It seems, though, that since then, some sort of notice, perhaps a D-notice - would have been issued to the press, enforcing censureship on such stories in the future. Best of luck with Sarah Hubble in her journalistic career.

An excellent commentary with links on these two stories is provided on Tony Gosling's 9/11 forum.

"Unless this story is broken in a newspaper or foreign news agency it's unlikely to see the light of day", says the write-up on the Friday Drivetime website. Let's try to help that along. Send your friends the links. Possibly copy the interview on to an audio CD and pass it on. I sense that the army of talkers is growing. We all know that there is something fundamentally wrong. I can now walk into any pub and quickly find people who agree. Five years ago people thought that truthers were 'conspiracy theorists'; I had to be very guarded in talking about 9/11 and 7/7 and the impending economic gloom. But now the idea that we're being governed by a hidden government with its own agenda is becoming generally accepted. But there's still a long way to go.

We must encourage potential whistleblowers to speak out. Find out andspeak out, and do keep Talking.